On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:43 AM Mark Tinka wrote:
> So if your peer or provider sent you a link to a web site where they
> published all of their support BGP communities, you'd find that onerous
> to deploy across them?
I'd find it to require more effort than just applying the same
route-maps we
Sounds like you need a template based configuration management system and
better automation more than you need to inflict an ad-hoc standardization of
additional communities on the world.
Owen
> On Sep 9, 2020, at 12:21 AM, Robert Raszuk via NANOG wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Nope .. it is the othe
quot;Tom Beecher" mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>>
> To: "Mike Hammett" mailto:na...@ics-il.net>>
> Cc: "NANOG" mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>, "Douglas Fischer"
> mailto:fischerdoug...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:02:37 PM
>
> Using 2-byte communities in today's age of explosive "assignment" of
> 4-byte ASN's is similar to the price-hike of IPv4 space. In the long
> term. Standard BGP communities and IPv4 will not be worth the required
> effort/investment (unless you want to "cripple" yourself from the
> get-go). And I
ike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> From: "Tom Beecher via NANOG"
> To: "Douglas Fischer"
> Cc: "NANOG"
> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:30:19 P
> On Sep 8, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Mark Tinka via NANOG wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/Sep/20 17:55, Douglas Fischer via NANOG wrote:
>
>> Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some
>> routes to some where.
>>
>> On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the
On 11/Sep/20 20:58, Hunter Fuller wrote:
Hey Mark, I am here. At 10364 we have 7 network people, 3 of whom have
an understanding of BGP deeper than surface level. We have 3 peers and
2 transit providers total.
When we go to implement external-facing BGP policy, the #1 concern is
"What are mo
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:05 AM Mark Tinka via NANOG wrote:
>> Circling back to earlier where I said there are almost 70k ASNs in use on
>> the public Internet. Most of those operators don't have complex
>> configurations. I'd be surprised if less than half of them had anything more
>> than the
e…
>
>
>
> adam
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeff Tantsura
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2020 6:01 PM
> *To:* adamv0...@netconsultings.com
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker -
> Any ASN reserved to &q
: Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 6:01 PM
To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
reserved to "export-only-to"?'
BCP38 is an RFC, 2827.
It is a grand advise if yo
beit concentrated around security)
>
> adam
>
> From: Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 9:52 AM
> To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
> r
Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> From: "Mark Tinka"
> To: "Mike Hammett"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:59:55 AM
> Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-
On 9/Sep/20 17:42, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> It's not about numbers ... it's about ability to uniformly express
> policy with chain of arguments.
>
> See even with large communities you can define a policy with an
> unstructured parameter and single action then you need to put it on
> all of you
On 9/Sep/20 17:52, Mike Hammett wrote:
> No, but most network operators also aren't NANOG members, attend NANOG
> shows, subscribe to NANOG lists.
>
> They're small outfits where there's between 1 - 5 total networking people.
Yeah, I'll steer clear of that one :-)...
>
> Circling back to earl
t-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Tinka"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:13:32 AM
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
reserved to "export-only-to"?'
It's not about numbers ... it's about ability to uniformly express policy
with chain of arguments.
See even with large communities you can define a policy with an
unstructured parameter and single action then you need to put it on all of
your boxes to act upon.
Is it possible to perhaps express i
On 9/Sep/20 15:25, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> That's not quite true.
>
> See the entire idea behind defining a common mechanism for signalling
> policy in communities in a flexible way for both intra and
> inter-domain use is to help you to use the same encoding acros policy
> engines of many vendo
> Chriztoffer Hansen via NANOG
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 1:29 PM
>
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 06:25, Mark Tinka via NANOG
> wrote:
> > It's not unlike trusting your customers to send you FlowSpec
> > instructions. No issues technically, but do you want to do it?
>
> Why not? As a servic
, September 9, 2020 9:52 AM
To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
reserved to "export-only-to"?'
I don’t think, anyone has proposed to use ‘’reserved ASNs” as a BCP, example of
“ab”
>
> Well, the proposed de facto standard is only useful for what we need to
> signal outside of the AS.
That's not quite true.
See the entire idea behind defining a common mechanism for signalling
policy in communities in a flexible way for both intra and inter-domain use
is to help you to use t
On 9/Sep/20 15:09, Mike Hammett wrote:
> If history has taught us anything, everything we do will be ignored by
> those that most need it. :-)
Touche :-)...
Mark.
On 9/Sep/20 15:06, Mike Hammett wrote:
> More operators don't use communities internally than the number of
> operators that do.
Do you have some empirical data on that?
I don't know if it's more, or less. But as Charlton Heston said in "True
Lies":
"So far this is not blowing my skirt up, g
e Hammett"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:59:55 AM
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
reserved to "export-only-to"?'
Well, the proposed de facto standard is only useful for what we need to signal
On 9/Sep/20 14:29, Chriztoffer Hansen wrote:
> Why not? As a service offering, it makes total sense.
Yes, makes total sense.
So why aren't jumping all over it?
>
> Thou, generally I agree with you. Trust, but verify any received
> announcement conforms to a base-set of expectations. Discard
Hammett"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:59:55 AM
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
reserved to "export-only-to"?'
Well, the proposed de facto standard is only useful for what we need to signal
outside
ttp://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> *From: *"Mark Tinka"
> *To: *"Mike Hammett"
> *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Wednesday, September 9, 2020 6:4
igent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Tinka"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 6:47:13 AM
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 06:25, Mark Tinka via NANOG wrote:
> It's not unlike trusting your customers to send you FlowSpec
> instructions. No issues technically, but do you want to do it?
Why not? As a service offering, it makes total sense.
Thou, generally I agree with you. Trust, but verify any r
On 9/Sep/20 13:41, Mike Hammett wrote:
> How is that any different than any other network with minimal
> connectivity (say a non-ISP such as a school, medium business, local
> government, etc.)?
Because the existing flexibility of dis-aggregated BGP community design
can be done without any need
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Tinka via NANOG"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 11:28:48 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-exp
mber 8, 2020 11:26:43 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
reserved to "export-only-to"?'
On 8/Sep/20 20:35, Mike Hammett via NANOG wrote:
How I see the OP's intent is to create a BCP of what defined communities have
Robert,
This is not whether you should do it, but, should you have decided to, how to
do it in the best possible way, without making mistakes someone else has made
and learnt from.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Sep 9, 2020, at 11:40, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> And use of BGP without IGP left and righ
Jeff Tantsura via NANOG wrote on 09/09/2020 09:03:
De-facto standards are as good as people implementing them, however in
order to enforce non ambiguous implementations, it has to be de-jure
(e.g. a standard track RFC).
While I’m sympathetic to the idea, I’m quite skeptical about its viability.
And use of BGP without IGP left and right when even today bunch of DCs can
do just fine with current IGPs scaling wise is IMO not a good thing.
Thx
R.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, 10:55 Jeff Tantsura via NANOG wrote:
> I don’t think, anyone has proposed to use ‘’reserved ASNs” as a BCP,
> example of “a
I don’t think, anyone has proposed to use ‘’reserved ASNs” as a BCP, example of
“ab”use of ASN0 is a de-facto artifact (unfortunate one).
My goal would be to provide a viable source of information to someone who is
setting up a new ISP and has a very little clue as where to start. Do’s and
don’t
On 9/Sep/20 10:03, Jeff Tantsura via NANOG wrote:
> De-facto standards are as good as people implementing them, however in
> order to enforce non ambiguous implementations, it has to be de-jure
> (e.g. a standard track RFC).
> While I’m sympathetic to the idea, I’m quite skeptical about its
> v
De-facto standards are as good as people implementing them, however in order to
enforce non ambiguous implementations, it has to be de-jure (e.g. a standard
track RFC).
While I’m sympathetic to the idea, I’m quite skeptical about its viability.
A well written BCP would be much more valuable, and
I don’t agree with the use of reserved ASNs, let alone making it BCP, cause it
defeats the whole purpose of the community structure.
Community is basically sending a message to an AS. If I want your specific AS
to interpret the message I set it in format YOUR_ASN:, your AS
in the first part of
On 9/Sep/20 09:21, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Nope .. it is the other way around.
>
> It is all easy if you look from your network centric view.
>
> But if I am connected to 10 ISPs in each POP I have to build 10
> different egress policies, each embedding custom policy, teach NOC to
> understand i
On 9/Sep/20 09:15, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> On last point yes. The entire idea behind flow spec is to work
> inter-as to mitigate DDoS as close to a source as possible.
Indeed, that is the original intention. Any reason why we don't see it
happening in this way, today?
> And as far as wide the
Mark,
Nope .. it is the other way around.
It is all easy if you look from your network centric view.
But if I am connected to 10 ISPs in each POP I have to build 10 different
egress policies, each embedding custom policy, teach NOC to understand it
etc...
I think if there is a defined way to ex
Mark,
On last point yes. The entire idea behind flow spec is to work inter-as to
mitigate DDoS as close to a source as possible.
And if you validate against advertising reachability what's the problem ?
And as far as wide they just let you structure your community in a common
way. It is both to
On 8/Sep/20 23:22, Douglas Fischer via NANOG wrote:
> Exactly Mike!
>
> The Idea would be to define some base levels, to make the creations of
> route-filtering simpler to everyone in the world.
> And what comes beyond that, is in charge of each autonomous system.
>
> It would make the scripting
On 8/Sep/20 22:02, Tom Beecher via NANOG wrote:
> I also get that intent from the OP. However I disagree that there
> should be a 'de facto' standard created for such things. All flavors
> of BGP community specifications are designed to be flexible so that
> different networks can design a syst
On 8/Sep/20 20:35, Mike Hammett via NANOG wrote:
> How I see the OP's intent is to create a BCP of what defined
> communities have what effect instead of everyone just making up
> whatever they draw out of a hat, simplifying this process for everyone.
Which only matters if you are extending a c
On 8/Sep/20 20:15, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> This does not require any more trust for say directly connected peers
> more then today when you publish communities on the web page.
I'd tend to disagree.
Trusting your direct peer to not send you default or to have a 24/7 NOC
to handle connectivity
riginal Message -
From: "Mike Hammett via NANOG"
To: "Tom Beecher"
Cc: "NANOG"
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 5:56:22 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
reserved to "export-only-to"?
NANOG" , "Douglas Fischer"
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:36:22 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
reserved to "export-only-to"?'
Every network is a snowflake already. Everyone has different needs and
Douglas
On 08.09.2020 17:55, Douglas Fischer via NANOG wrote:
> Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some
> routes to some where.
>
> On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the very
> common community tell to route-servers and routers "Please do
t; Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Tom Beecher via NANOG"
> *To: *"Douglas Fischer"
> *Cc: *"NANOG"
> *Sent:
t; fischerdoug...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:02:37 PM
> *Subject: *Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker -
> Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
>
> I also get that intent from the OP. However I disagree that there
-
From: "Tom Beecher"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: "NANOG" , "Douglas Fischer"
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:02:37 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
reserved to "export-only-to"?'
ttp://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Tom Beecher via NANOG"
> *To: *"Douglas Fischer"
> *Cc: *"NANOG"
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:30:19 PM
> *Subject: *Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-expo
Douglas,
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 17:55, Douglas Fischer via NANOG wrote:
>
> Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some
> routes to somewhere.
>
> On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the very common
> community tell to route-servers and router
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Beecher via NANOG"
To: "Douglas Fischer"
Cc: "NANOG"
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:30:19 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN
BGP Large Communities ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195 ) already
provides for anyone to define the exact handling you wish.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM Douglas Fischer via NANOG
wrote:
> Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some
> routes to some where.
>
Mark,
This does not require any more trust for say directly connected peers more
then today when you publish communities on the web page.
It is not about opening up your network. It is about expressing your policy
in a common way in the exact say amount as you would open up your network
today.
N
On 8/Sep/20 18:41, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> I don't think this is the ask here.
>
> Today NO_EXPORT takes no parameters. I think it would be of benefit to
> all to be able to signal NO_EXPORT TO ASN_X in a common (std) way
> across all of my peers connected to ASN_X. Moreover policy on all
> ven
Mark,
> The standard already exists... "NO_EXPORT".
I don't think this is the ask here.
Today NO_EXPORT takes no parameters. I think it would be of benefit to all
to be able to signal NO_EXPORT TO ASN_X in a common (std) way across all of
my peers connected to ASN_X. Moreover policy on all vendo
On 8/Sep/20 17:55, Douglas Fischer via NANOG wrote:
> Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export
> some routes to some where.
>
> On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the very
> common community tell to route-servers and routers "Please do
> no-exp
Hi Douglas,
Just FYI I have tried to capture most common use cases of communities and
register them as part of a wide-community effort in IANA.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-registered-wide-bgp-communities-02
That draft is pending standardization of wide-communities itself.
You are
61 matches
Mail list logo
