Subject: [Idr] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:01:04 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>From an operational point of view, when an ISP wants to go change from
bilateral interconnections to the multilateral interconnection within one
IXP, is this correct to say that all bilateral interconnections should be
removed?
So that basically the ISP must chose between the two models, and not
combined them? If this is the case, it should be mentioned.
I thought it was clear to me until I saw figure 1: The dotted line is the
IXP or the IXP Route Server?
At first glance, I thought that it was the IXP and that AS1 was connected
to the IXP Route Server while still having a bilateral connection with
AS4.
I hope now that the dotted line is the IXP Route Server, otherwise I've
confused.

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:04:00 +0200

Benoit,

removed?

Not really. It is quite common to see IX participants having direct
peerings as well as peerings via RS. All is driven by BGP policies both at
the peering routers directly as well as on the RS.

Thx,
R.

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:16:11 +0000

On 6/15/16, 10:04 AM, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> on behalf of [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

It is quite common to see IX participants having direct peerings as well as peerings via RS. All is driven by BGP policies both at the peering routers directly as well as on the RS.

Agreed.  To Benoit's point, it would be nice to clarify the meaning of the different line types in Figure 1, and not leave it up to interpretation.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:16:41 -0700

On 6/15/16 8:04 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Benoit,
> 
> 
>> IXP, is this correct to say that all bilateral interconnections should be removed?
> 
> peerings as well as peerings via RS. All is driven by BGP policies both
> at the peering routers directly as well as on the RS.

When networks grow and add multiple ports to an IX it is common to
migrate neighbors from the mlpe to blp sessions in part so you have
better coordination and control (the hidden route problem again, also it
unreasonable to expect routes learned via the route servers to load
balance between ports etc).

So in fact both styles will almost always be well represented on an
exchange, with the cavaet that the more restrictive your peering policy
is the less likely you are to appear on or accept routes from the mlpe.

> Thx,
> R.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Please refer to
>     https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 18:13:44 +0200

On 6/15/2016 5:16 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> On 6/15/16, 10:04 AM, "[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> on 
> behalf of Robert Raszuk" <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
> on behalf of [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     It is quite common to see IX participants having direct peerings
>     as well as peerings via RS. All is driven by BGP policies both at
> Agreed.  To Benoit's point, it would be nice to clarify the meaning of 
> the different line types in Figure 1, and not leave it up to 
> interpretation.
Yes, and a sentence stressing that mlpe and blp sessions are not 
inconsistent in an IXP would be useful IMO.

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:20:49 +0100

> I hope now that the dotted line is the IXP Route Server, otherwise I've

The lines represent interconnection arrangements, whether multilateral
or bilateral.  I've updated the draft to reflect this.

Nick

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:26:29 +0100

> inconsistent in an IXP would be useful IMO.

Good suggestion, but this draft is about the changes required for the
BGP protocol.  This is more appropriate to
draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations, section 3.  I've made a
note to add it in there.

Nick