On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 08:46:10AM +0000, Martijn Schmidt wrote: > I see the following proposal, which I reckon references to > de-aggregation oopsies by so-called "route optimizers": > > Jul 2020 - “Document negative consequences of de-aggregating received > routes for traffic engineering purposes” - to IESG > > And that reminds me of something - what about the inverse where the > originating ISP is overdoing their traffic engineering by selectively > announcing de-aggregated routes alongside an overarching supernet? > It's not a huge problem from a routing security perspective, but this > is a major challenge in routing traffic locally outside > well-established markets, especially when the ISP in question > backhauls some (but not all) of their upstream providers over very > long submarine paths.
Yes, the inverse can be an issue as well. We can add that as a milestone! Perhaps: "Document impact of selectively announcing de-aggregated routes in the global routing system." It could be helpful to come up with a fancy nickname for this type of issue, in the spirit of how "BGP Wedgies" (RFC 4264) is a nice short name for a complex issue. Maybe "BGP Deaggregation Slopping" as a working title? In any regard, will you take a lead to produce a draft? :) Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow