latest operations Minutes from Michael

29th September 2014

Attendees:

Rick Havern

Roy Hockett

Edoardo Martelli

Joe Metzger

Mike O’Connor

Craig Volp

 

Agenda:

BGP Community based filtering

 

The BGP community based filtering discussion began with the basic requirement to not use LHCONE for transit to specific LHCONE participating sites as discussed at the Ann Arbor meeting Sep. 15 & 16, 2014.

 

How many community tags can be added to a BGP prefix advertisement?

Joe Metzger commented that it is a large number, much greater than the number of LHCONE participants. This should not be an issue.

 

The participating NSPs want to verify the suggested community ranges chose in the attached table to make sure they do not conflict with existing type field bit flag specifications, see RFC 4260. Roy Hockett volunteered to verify the ranges used in the LHCONE community table.

 

We are looking for a volunteer to draft an operational procedure for LHCONE sites wishing to implement BGP prefix control using these conventions.

 

There are LHCONE participating sites that either don’t have their own ASN or the NSP strips the site ASN and this would prevent the LHCONE community based advertisement control from being able to discriminate between sites that for some reason share an ASN.

 

The optional 65012: “Do not announce except to ASxxxx” would be complex to implement correctly and will not be implemented at least in the near term.

 

Following a review of the BGP community table found at:

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCONE/LhcOneVRF#BGP_communities

 

Cern, DANTE & ESnet have agreed to implement all “Mandatory” BGP communities, pending the procedural documentation for sites and the investigation of the chosen range with respect to RFC4360.

Thursday October 30, is the completion date for NSPs to implement the supporting BGP policies.

 

Representatives from CANARIE, I2 &  NORDUNet were not present on this call. The LHCONE representative should respond to the lhcone-operations list with their agreement or

disagreement in moving forward with this plan.

 
 

Inline image 1

 

 

Submitted by David Foster on Tue, 09/30/2014 - 05:40