Subject: Fwd: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route scope control to BCP

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 00:02:40 -0800

IDR folks,

 Please sanity-check this document.
 Thank you.
 
-- 
Alex

This is a forwarded message
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
To: 
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Sunday, November 03, 2002, 8:06:40 AM
Subject: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route scope control to BCP

===8<==============Original message text===============

The IESG has received a request from the Prefix Taxonomy Ongoing
Measurement & Inter Network Experiment Working Group to consider NOPEER
community for BGP route scope control
<draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-00.txt> as a BCP.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2002-11-17.

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-00.txt

===8<===========End of original message text===========

---

From: Justin Fletcher <[email-masked]>
Date: 07 Nov 2002 10:13:03 -0800

> [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2002-11-17.

I believe this should be considered as an experimental rather than a
BCP.  It does not document current practice and requires implementation
by router vendors before it can be adopted into practice.

Other issues:

The community field should be previously assigned by IANA and defined in
the document.

There's a large motivation section, but no implementation
section (what do I do with NOPEER if receive it?)

The paragraph

  This approach allows an originator of a prefix to attach a commonly
  defined policy to a route prefix, indicate that a route should be
  re-advertised conditionally, based on the characteristics of the
  inter-AS connection.

does not define the conditions under which a route should be
re-advertised.  Without such, I don't see a difference between
NOPEER and NO-ADVERTISE.

There should at least be references to RFC1771 and RFC1997.

I'd like a clear definition of "bilateral inter-AS peering"
early in the document.

Best,
Justin Fletcher
Proficient Networks, Inc.

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 17:59:14 -0500

> section (what do I do with NOPEER if receive it?)

The ISP configures policy (a single statement) based on the NOPEER BGP
community.

What the policy does is not sufficiently specified.

> re-advertised.  Without such, I don't see a difference between

The semantics are not defined.

A customer sends NO-ADVERTISE.  A peer sends NOPEER.  I would imagine
that a customer sending NOPEER would go out of the immediate AS
(NOPEER and current AS as the only AS in the path is exported) but no
further.  If this is what is intended the draft doesn't say so.

> Proficient Networks, Inc.

I agree with your comments regarding inadequate specification of
implementation.  This draft has a good motivation but semantics need
to be clearly defined.

It is also not a BCP since it is not a current practice (unless Geoff
is already doing this with his peers, which I doubt).

Curtis