[153164] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: HE.net BGP origin attribute rewriting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Thu May 31 13:35:49 2012
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:34:39 -0700
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Mail-Followup-To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120531172216.GO66560@gerbil.cluepon.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--AqsLC8rIMeq19msA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:22:16PM -0500, Richard A St=
eenbergen wrote:
> out of the protocol. I don't see anyone complaining when we rewrite=20
> someone else's MEDs, sometimes as a trick to move traffic onto your=20
> network (*), or even that big of a complaint when we remove another=20
> networks' communities, so I don't see why anyone cares about this one.
Take all the politics and contracts out of it, and look at MED from
a 100% pure engineering perspective, with the traditional view that
MED reflects IGP cost, and origin reflects where the route came
from in the first place.
I would argue the right engineering answer is that each network,
on outbound, should set the MED equal to the IGP cost. Basically
if an ASN gets 4 routes with 4 different MEDS on 4 peering points
and picks the "best", when it passes it on to the next metric the
IGP cost an AS away no longer makes any sense.
If the behavior is for each ASN to inject their own MED on outbound,
then rewriting inbound or outbound is just an extension of the
entirely local policy anyway, no different than changing IGP metrics.
Don't want to reflect IGP metrics, rewrite to a fixed value.
The origin is different, at least conceptually. The origin type
should reflect the state of the route before it went into BGP, a
property which does not change per-AS hop along the way.
That's why with a pure engineer hat on I would be much more
surprised/upset to see someone rewriting origin while I would expect
them to be rewriting MED.
Of course the real world isn't 100% engineering based. ISP's do
all sorts of weird and fun things, and customers can (usually) vote
with their dollars. I don't have a problem with an ISP implementing
pretty much any BGP policy they want /provided they disclose it to
their BGP customers/.
Perhaps if a large number of people were a bit more rational with their
peering policies we wouldn't have enginers dedicated to generating
routing funkyness just to meet peering criteria. It's not helping
anyone get reliable, high performing network access.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--AqsLC8rIMeq19msA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)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=9gjp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--AqsLC8rIMeq19msA--
