IETF 105 GROW meeting agenda Administrativa ============== - assign jabber scribe (TBD) - assign minute taker - Jared Current documents: * bmp-out is in IESG review, authors working address comments * draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior is with the RFC editor * draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib waiting for concensus in WG (Jeff?) * WGLC for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-registries-change (positive support) * draft-scudder-grow-bmp-peer-up was accepted as WG document New Documents: * call for adoption of draft-sa-grow-maxprefix Other News: * IDR is looking to re-charter and define milestones, GROW participants should think about what they’d want from IDR in the next 5 years * Living documents update (renamed “Evolving Documents”) Agenda ====== Alexander Azimov (15 minutes): - leak-detection-mitigation Paolo Lucente (10 minutes): - draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib - draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv Camilo Cardona (10 minutes): - draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-00 Guyunan (10 minutes): - draft-xu-grow-bmp-route-policy-attr-trace - draft-gu-grow-bmp-route-leak-detection AOB === 5 minutes — snip — Job: IDR is rechartering, please be aware of it John Scudder: We welcome feedback at our Meeting on Friday for IDR rechartering Q (via jabber) - What IDR documents go to which WG Scudder: That was a topic this morning with the AD, please bring them to the Job: There will be an update on Living Documents tomorrow at the Plenary (Warren: No) Job: They will be meeting in the same room tomorrow about Living Documents 830a - Presenter Alex: Job: I recommend you put TBD vs values that have not assigned Jeff Haas: Large communities were not intended to have well known values, think about if it should be in rfc1997 space as there are IANA considerations and IDR consultation should occur Doug Montgomery: I think what we agreed was the default policy would be MUST be reject Alex: You may or not want to mitigate Doug: Lets try to be more clear about it Ben Maddison: I would not dress up mitigation, we should do this by default Loc Rib Presenter: Paolo No questions draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv Presenter: Paolo No questions draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv Presenter: Camilo Jared: The types (bitfield) where should this set of types live, in IDR as a protocol thing or elsewhere? Jeff Haas: The problem with a lot of things with this tracing the BGP pipeline are not fully synchronous, like reachability or next-hop may come very late in the process. If it’s selected for best-path may be much further down the pipeline. Trying to tie these things in, locks the implementation down to send things out much later Camilo: Loc-rib is better? Jeff Haas: local-rib is far worse as you may have endless churn. There is something interesting here, but the primary feedback is about putting it into BMP, it’s possibly choking the firehose. Perhaps this is best served as a telemetry feed. Ben Madison: At least one implementation of add-path we run has a way to mark routes that are part of a set. This fits in well with the set-types you describe here. Alex Asimov: We have many other things like ASPA that are impacting the implementation. We may have reasons that may reject due to route-leak, RPKI failure Camilo: I don’t see why not. Haas: Maybe it’s easy, but it’s expensive Chair: We are time constrained, can we take to the list draft-gu-grow-bmp-route-leak-detection Presenter: Yunan Gu BMP for BGP route leak detection Not much has changed since IETF 103 presentation. Detection of route-leak has happened with the local as. No questions draft-xu-grow-bmp-route-policy-attr-trace Presenter: Yunan Gu Chair: Please send feedback to the list.