Re: Debugging accepted routes from BGP speakers

Hey Jakob,

But this is not what is being asked here.

There is need to validated if routes received on *specific* eBGP session
were accepted by bgp inbound policy.

What you suggesting is also quite useful but IMO 100% orthogonal to the
topic.

Reason being that in your scenario router would advertise the best path to
a peer back which may not be local eBGP route. Worse I may have N eBGP
session to a given peer's ASBR and I would like to make sure all of my
paths has passed his policy.

Moreover as Jared said he is not so much concern of overall
reachability validation. He is concerned when his most preferred path goes
down does his peer has backup path(s) to him.

Kind regards,
R.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 6:19 AM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[email protected]>
wrote:

> In https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271#section-9.1.2
> the AS loop is broken at the receiver.
> Nowhere does it say that the sender must break the AS loop.
> Split horizon filtering is a common practice, but nowhere
> is it mandated. At least I could not find it.
>
> If the receiver of your route were to send you back its
> best path, even if it's your route, then you have your
> information.
>
> We could invent an address-family specific capability
> to indicate that you wish your route to be echoed back.
>
> Regards,
> Jakob.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Job Snijders
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 3:00 AM
> To: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>
> Cc: IDR <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Debugging accepted routes from BGP speakers
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:50 AM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > The latter one is oftentimes easily validated by Internet-wide looking
> glasses
> >
> > Hmmmm I must say that IMHO both latter and former could be addressed by
> looking-glass. In fact when I read this draft that was my first question -
> why not to just look at peer's looking glass ?
>
> Many networks unfortunately do not make BGP Looking Glasses available,
> nor is there any standardized interface/method/design/approach for BGP
> Looking Glasses. So solely relying on Looking Glasses for this
> functionality has proven to be insufficient.
>
> > So perhaps we should simply issue a BCP to say that each AS should run a
> looking glass server holding all paths and declare victory ? And that could
> be all GROW WG thing too :)
>
> That is an interesting idea, but in my mind not the exclusive viable
> solution.
>
> > I already see a bunch of new things we could accomplish in the Internet
> if we would have those in place consistently everywhere - at least for each
> transit AS.
>
> Agreed - it would be a nicer world. Through the MANRS initiative I've
> pitched the idea to provide more encouragement for networks to provide
> looking glasses to the public, but arguably their availability is not
> ubiquitous.
>
> Another observation is that in the "IP Transit Carrier" segment of the
> market we see BGP Looking Glasses from time to time, but we rarely see
> similar functionality offered by Cloud/CDN providers. Perhaps the
> latter category is not interested in running & maintaining looking
> glasses, or perhaps there are other constraints that prevent them from
> exposing this information via suchs tools. My hope is that by creating
> a feedback mechanism in BGP we create more opportunity to share
> debugging information specific to EBGP sessions between different
> orgs.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr