- routing-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Draft of Route-Flap Dampening Paper
by Christian Panigl, ACOnet/UniVie 25 Sep '97

25 Sep '97

Dear members of the Routing-WG, here is the final draft version of the "Route Flap Dampening" paper as it came out of our task-force. Please, if possible, have a look at it before the WG meeting on Wednesday morning and bring your comments to the meeting and/or post them to the list. See you Christian --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- --- Christian Panigl : Vienna University Computer Center - ACOnet --- --- VUCC - ACOnet - VIX : -------------------------------------------- --- --- Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Mail: Panigl(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at (CP8-RIPE) --- --- A-1010 Vienna / Austria : Tel: +43 1 4277-14032 (Fax: -9140) --- --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- =============================================================================== RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for coordinated route-flap dampening paramters Tony Barber Sean Doran Daniel Karrenberg Christian Panigl Joachim Schmitz Document status: DRAFT 1.2 22-SEP-1997 ABSTRACT This paper recommends a set of route-flap dampening parameters which should be applied by all ISPs in the Internet and should be deployed as new default values by BGP router vendors. Table of Contents ABSTRACT 1. Introduction 1.1 Motivation for route-flap dampening 1.2 What is route-flap dampening ? 1.3 "Progressive" versus "flat&gentle" approach 1.4 Motivation for coordinated parameters 2. Recommended dampening parameters 2.1 Motivation for recommendation 2.2 Description of recommended dampening parameters 2.3 Example configuration for Cisco IOS 2.4 No BGP fast-external-fallover (Cisco IOS) 2.5 Clear IP BGP soft (Cisco IOS) 3. Open problems 3.1 Multiplication of flaps through multiply interconnected ASes 3.2 Is dampening of customer route-flaps a good idea ? 4. References 1. Introduction In the Routing WG session of RIPE26 Christian Panigl asked whether people are interested to participate in a BOF on route flap dampening. The BOF session was held after the plenary session of RIPE26. The discussion was continued in the Routing WG session of RIPE27 and led to a task-force directed to write a proposal document for coordinated route-flap dampening parameters. 1.1 Motivation for route-flap dampening About 1993/94 the massive growth of the Internet with regard to the number of announced prefixes (often due to inadequate prefix-aggregation), multiple paths and instabilities started to do significant harm to the efficiency of the core routers of the Internet. Every single line-flap at the periphery which makes a routing prefix unreachable has to be advertised to the whole core Internet and has to be dealt by every single router by means of updates of the routing-table. To overcome this situation a route-flap dampening mechanism was "invented" in 1993 and has been integrated into several router code since 1995 (Cisco, ISI/RSd, GateD Consortium). It significantly helps now with keeping severe instabilities more local. And there's a second benfit: it's raising the awareness of the existence of instabilities because severe route/line-flapping problems lead to permanent suppression of the unstable area by means of holding down the flapping prefixes. 1.2 What is route-flap dampening ? Route-flap dampening is a mechanism for (BGP) routers which is aimed at improving the overall stability of the Internet routing table and offloading core-routers CPUs. When BGP route-flap dampening is enabled in a router the router starts to collect statistics about the announcement and withdrawal of prefixes. Route-flap dampening is governed by a set of parameters with vendor-supplied default values which may be modified by the router manager. The names, semantic and syntax of these parameters differ between the various implementations, however, the behaviour of the dampening mechanism is basically the same: If a threshold of the number of pairs of withdrawals/announcements (=flap) is exceeded in a given timeframe the prefix is held down for a calculated period (penalty) which is further incremented with every subsequent flap. The penalty is then decremented by using a half-life parameter whenever the prefix is visible until the penalty is below a reuse-threshold. Therefore, after beeing stable up for a certain period the hold-down is released from the prefix and it is re-used and re-advertised. Pointers to some more detailed and vendor specific documents: Cisco BGP Case Studies: Route Flap Dampening http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/16.html ISI/RSd Configuration: Route Flap Dampening http://www.isi.edu/div7/ra/RSd/doc/dampen.html GateD Configuration: Weighted Route Dampening Statement http://www.gated.org/new_web/code/doc/gated-uni/config_guide/wrd.html See also "4. References" 1.3 "Progressive" versus "flat&gentle" approach One easy approach would be to just apply the current default-parameters which are treating all prefixes equally ("flat&gentle") everywhere, however, there is a major concern to penalise longer prefixes (=smaller aggregates) more than well aggregated short prefixes ("progressive"), because the number of short prefixes in the routing table is significantly lower and it seems in general that those are tending to be much more stable. Another aspect is that progressive dampening might increase the awareness of aggregation needs, however, it has to be accompanied by a careful design which doesn't force a rush for higher than required IP address-range allocations. Because a significant number of important services is sitting in long prefixes (e.g. root nameservers) the progressive approach has to exclude the strong penalisation for those long but "golden" prefixes. With this recommendation we are trying to make a compromise and call it therefor "graded dampening". 1.4 Motivation for coordinated parameters There is a strong need for the coordinated use of dampening parameters because of several reasons: Coordination of "progressiveness": If the boundaries for different treatment of longer prefixes and the penalties are not coordinated throughout the Internet, route-flap dampening could even lead to additional flapping or temporary routing-loops because longer prefixes might already be re-announced through some parts of the Internet where shorter prefixes are still held down through other paths. Coordination of "aggressiveness": If an upstream or peering provider would be dampening more aggressively (e.g. triggered by less flaps or applying longer hold-down timers) than an access-provider towards his customers it will lead to a very inconsistent situation, where a flapping network might still be able to reach "near-line" parts of the Internet. Debugging of such instabilities is then much harder because the effect for the customer leads to the assumption that there is a problem "somewhere" in the "upstream" Internet instead of making him just call his ISPs hotline and complain that he can't get out any longer. Further, after successful repair of the problem the access-provider can easily clear the flap-dampening for his customer on his local router instead of needing to contact upstream NOCs all over the Internet to get the dampening cleared. 2. Recommended dampening parameters 2.1 Motivation for recommendation At RIPE26 and 27 Christian Panigl presented the following network backbone maintenance example from his own experience, which was triggering flap dampening in some upstream and peering ISPs routers for all his and his customers /24 prefixes for more than 3 hours because of too "aggressive" paramters: scheduled SW upgrade of backbone router failed: - reload after SW upgrade 1 flap - new SW crashed 1 flap - reload with old SW 1 flap ------ 3 flaps within 10 minutes which resulted in the following dampening scenario at some boundaries with progressive route-flap dampening enabled: Prefix length: /24 /19 /16 suppress time: ~3h 45-60' <30' Therefore, in the Routing-WG session at RIPE27, it was agreed that suppression should not start until the 4th flap in a row and that the maximum suppression should in no case last longer than 1 hour from the last flap. It was agreed that a recommendation from RIPE would be desirable. Given that the current allocation policies are expected to hold for the foreseeable future, it was suggested that all /19's or shorter prefixes are not penalised harder than current Cisco default dampening does. Those suggestions in mind Tony Barber designed the following set of route-flap dampening parameters which have prooved to work smoothly in his environment for a couple of months. 2.2 Description of recommended dampening parameters Basically the recommended values do the following with harsher treatment for /24 and longer prefixes: - don't start dampening before the 4th flap in a row - /24 and longer prefixes: max=min outage 60 minutes - /22 and /23 prefixes: max outage 45 minutes but potential for less because of half life value - minimum of 30 minutes outage - all else prefixes: max outage 30 minutes min outage 10 minutes 2.3 Example configuration for Cisco IOS ! Parameters are : ! set dampening <half life> <reuse-at> <supress-at> <max suppress time> ! There is a 1000 penalty for each flap ! Penalty decays at granularity of 5 seconds ! Unsuppressed at granularity of 10 seconds ! Dampening info kept until penalty becomes < half of reuse limit. ! router bgp 65500 !no bgp damp bgp damp route-map graded-flap-dampening ! ! don't dampen candidate default routes ! OPTIONAL (not part of recommendation) ! access-list 189 is the candidate default routes ! no route-map graded-flap-dampening deny 5 route-map graded-flap-dampening deny 5 match ip address 189 ! ! don't dampen root nameserver nets ! no route-map graded-flap-dampening deny 7 route-map graded-flap-dampening deny 7 match ip address 180 ! ! Heavy dampening of all networks which have a mask of ! /24 and above. These are supressed into a datastructure ! with a half life of 30 minutes, only re-use when reaches 750 ! Max outage of 60 minutes. ! no route-map graded-flap-dampening permit 10 route-map graded-flap-dampening permit 10 match ip address 181 set dampening 30 750 3000 60 ! ! dampen /23 /22 ! half life is now 15 minutes and reuse at 1000 ! no route-map graded-flap-dampening permit 20 route-map graded-flap-dampening permit 20 match ip address 182 set dampening 15 750 3000 45 ! ! default dampening on all less than /22 defaults to this ! different to CISCO defaults which are 15 750 2000 30 ! bgp dampening command ! no route-map graded-flap-dampening permit 40 route-map graded-flap-dampening permit 40 set dampening 10 1500 3000 30 ! !----------------------------------------------------------------------- ! ACCESS LISTS 180-189 GO BELOW !----------------------------------------------------------------------- ! access-lists 180 to 189 used or reserved for progressive route flap dampening ! ! 180 - BGP dampening - root-nameservers.net networks are NOT dampened ! This filter stops these networks being dampened. ! Also DONT dampen routes used to derive default (see list 7) ! but this is handled in a separate route-map statement. ! in the file dampening-confg. ! Route map uses DENY to drop out of map on matching. ! no access-list 180 ! ! A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. access-list 180 permit ip 198.41.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. access-list 180 permit ip 128.9.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. access-list 180 permit ip 192.33.4.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. access-list 180 permit ip 128.8.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. access-list 180 permit ip 192.203.230.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. access-list 180 permit ip 192.5.4.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.254.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. access-list 180 permit ip 192.112.36.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. access-list 180 permit ip 128.63.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. access-list 180 permit ip 192.36.148.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 198.41.0.10 same net as A ! ! K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. access-list 180 permit ip 193.0.14.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0 ! ! L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 198.32.64.12 access-list 180 permit ip 198.32.64.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 ! ! M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 198.32.65.12 access-list 180 permit ip 198.32.65.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 ! ! ! - 181 - dampens /24 and greater prefixes ! no access-list 181 ! access-list 181 permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 181 deny ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 ! ! - 182 - dampens /23 /22 and above ! no access-list 182 ! access-list 182 permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 255.255.252.0 0.0.3.255 access-list 182 deny ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 ! ! - 189 - Candidate default networks used in some customer bgp implementations ! no access-list 189 ! access-list 189 permit ip !!! put your defaults in here access-list 189 deny ip any any ! 2.4 No BGP fast-external-fallover (Cisco IOS) In Cisco IOS there is a BGP configuration parameter "fast-external-fallover" which when on (default) leads to an immediate clearing of a BGP neighbor whenever the line-protocol to this external neighbor goes down. If it is turned off the BGP sessions will survive short line-flaps as they will use the longer BGP keepalive/hold timers (default 60/180 seconds). The drawback of turning it off is that the switchover to an alternative path will take longer. It is recommendet to turn off fast-external-fallover: ! router bgp 65501 no bgp fast-external-fallover ! 2.5 Clear IP BGP soft (Cisco IOS) There is a new "soft" mechanism for the clearing of BGP sessions available with Cisco IOS. For beeing able to make use of the "clear ip bgp x.x.x.x soft" command both sides must support it and need to be configured to accept it from the neighbor: ! router bgp 65501 neighbor 10.0.0.2 remote-as 65502 neighbor 10.0.0.2 soft-reconfiguration inbound ! Without the keyword "soft" a "clear ip bgp x.x.x.x" will always withdraw all announced prefixes from/to neighbor x.x.x.x and re-advertise them (= route-flap for all prefixes which are available before and after the clear). With "clear ip bgp x.x.x.x soft" only those prefixes will be withdrawn which are no longer available with the new update and only those prefixes will be re-advertised which haven't been known before (no route-flap). 3. Open problems 3.1 Multiplication of flaps through multiply interconnected ASes Christian Panigl recently made the following experience with a line upgrade of an Ebone customer: - It is absolutely positive that through the upgrade process just ONE flap was generated (disconnect router-port from modem A reconnect to modem B), nevertheless the customers prefix was dampened in all ICM routers (ICM/AS1800 is US upstream for Ebone). - The flap statistics in the ICM routers stated *4* flaps !!! - The only explanation would be that the multiple interconnections between Ebone/AS1755 and ICM/AS1800 did multiply the flaps (advertisements/withdrawals arrived time-shifted at ICM routers through the multiple paths). - This would then potentially hold true for any meshed topology because of the propagation delays of advertisements/withdrawals. - Workaround for scheduled actions like with the given example: Schedule a downtime for at least 3-5 minutes which should be enough for the prefix withdrawals to have propagated through all paths before reconnection and re-advertisement of the prefix. Avoid clearing BGP sessions as this is usually generating a 30" outage which might easily give the same result. - A solution has to be provided by the vendors ! 3.2 Is dampening of customer route-flaps a good idea ? As already explained in section 1.3 flap-dampening is at its best value and most consistent and helpful if applied as near to the source of the problem as possible. Therefore flap-dampening should not only be applied at peering boundaries but even more at customer boundaries ! 4. References RIPE/Routing-WG Minutes dealing with Route Flap Dampening: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/minutes/ripe-m-24.ps ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/minutes/ripe-m-25.ps http://www.ripe.net/wg/routing/r25-routing.html http://www.ripe.net/wg/routing/r26-routing.html http://www.ripe.net/wg/routing/r27-routing.html Curtis Villamizar, ANS: Controlling BGP/IDRP Routing Overhead http://figaro.ans.net/route-dampen/ NANOG-Feb-1995 Route Flap Dampening Presentation (slides): ftp://engr.ans.net/pub/papers/slides/nanog-feb-1995-route-dampen.ps Merit/IPMA: Internet Routing Recommendations http://www.merit.edu/~ipma/docs/help.html Cisco BGP Case Studies: Route Flap Dampening http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/16.html ISI/RSd Configuration: Route Flap Dampening http://www.isi.edu/div7/ra/RSd/doc/dampen.html GateD Configuration: Weighted Route Dampening Statement http://www.gated.org/new_web/code/doc/gated-uni/config_guide/wrd.html

4 5

rpsl transition session
by SchmitzJo＠aol.com 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

Dear all, one topic which has been lurking in the back for quite some time for the IRR is a more elaborate description of routing policies than offered by RIPE-181. In the past months it has more and more emerged, become mature, and is now on the standards track of IETF: RPSL, the routing policy structured language. For future development of the Internet world it needs to be incorporated into the registries. Some preliminary work has already been done to include RPSL into the RIPE database software. But we are still in the beginning. We want to show you which work was done up to now, which work is currently done, and which work there is still to be done in the future. We also want your input to allow a smooth transition from the current version of the database to its future implementation. RPSL is a topic which is important both for routing issues, and for database evolution. Therefore, the chairmen of database wg and routing wg, Wilfried Woeber and Joachim Schmitz, decided to have a joint session of both working groups in addition to their individual wg sessions, on this special topic, the RPSL transition. The individual wg sessions (routing and db) are held on Wednesday. The RPSL transition session is prepared with the help of the RIPE NCC and RPSL developers. It will be held on Thursday at 9:00am (see meeting schedule). Its major goal is *not* to teach RPSL but to give an overview of the current situation and planned developments. Please find enclosed the draft agenda for this session. Regards Wilfried Woeber and Joachim Schmitz Draft Agenda RPSL Transition Session 1. Preliminaries (Joachim Schmitz, Wilfried Woeber) - participants' list - volunteering of scribe - questions to the audience, part one - introduction 2. Short Introduction to RPSL (Daniel Karrenberg) 3. RPSL Planned Development (David Kessens) - RaToolSet - Status of the DB code - conversion tools 4. Changes in RIPE Database Software Behaviour (David Kessens) 5. Outline of a Transition Plan for RIPE (Carol Orange) 6. AOB - questions to the audience, part two - Tutorial at next RIPE meeting ---

1 0

2nd draft agenda routing wg session
by SchmitzJo＠aol.com 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

Dear colleagues, there is a new topic on the agenda and I did not want to keep it from you ;-) Regards Joachim R I P E 2 8 A M S T E R D A M Routing Working Group Session 24-Sep-97 Draft Agenda A. Preliminaries (Joachim Schmitz) - introduction - participants' list - volunteering of scribe - agenda bashing - RIPE 27 minutes - actions from earlier meetings B. Current Developments (Joachim Schmitz) - ietf - rpsl - rpsl transition session C. Report from the RIPE NCC (Daniel Karrenberg) D. Authorisation/Notification with Route Objects - implementations in database software (Carol Orange) - hierarchical authorisation of route objects revisited (Joachim Schmitz) - discussion E. Route Flap Dampening Parameters (Christian Panigl) - report from the task force - the route flap dampening paper F. PAIR - Overview and Introduction (Jake Khuon) Y. General Input from Other WGs Z. AOB

1 0

RIPE 28 draft agenda of routing wg session
by SchmitzJo＠aol.com 17 Sep '97

17 Sep '97

Dear colleagues, please find enclosed the draft agenda of the routing wg session for the RIPE28 meeting in Amsterdam next week. Additions, suggestions, comments welcome. Regards Joachim R I P E 2 8 A M S T E R D A M Routing Working Group Session 24-Sep-97 Draft Agenda A. Preliminaries (Joachim Schmitz) - introduction - participants' list - volunteering of scribe - agenda bashing - RIPE 27 minutes - actions from earlier meetings B. Current Developments (Joachim Schmitz) - ietf - rpsl - rpsl transition session C. Report from the RIPE NCC (Daniel Karrenberg) D. Authorisation/Notification with Route Objects - implementations in database software (Carol Orange) - hierarchical authorisation of route objects revisited (Joachim Schmitz) - discussion E. Route Flap Dampening Parameters (Christian Panigl) - report from the task force - the route flap dampening paper Y. General Input from Other WGs Z. AOB

1 0

None
by Patrik Backstrom 03 Sep '97

03 Sep '97

1 0

new draft minutes from last routing wg session
by SchmitzJo＠aol.com 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

Dear all, taking the comments from Carol into account a second draft of the minutes from the last routing wg session is available from http://www.ripe.net/wg/routing/r27-routing.html Changes are marked by a vertical line to the left of the text. Regards Joachim --- JS395-RIPE -- standard disclaimer ---

1 0

help
by Ola.A.Johansson＠telia.se 30 Jul '97

30 Jul '97

help who routing-wg /inet(routing-wg(a)ripe.net) Ola Johansson <ola(a)internet.telia.com> Ola Johansson <ola.a.johansson(a)telia.se>

1 0

http://www.isi.edu/ra/rps/transition/
by Cengiz Alaettinoglu 29 Jul '97

29 Jul '97

Hi, Please visit http://www.isi.edu/ra/rps/transition/. This page contains RIPE 181 to RPSL transition strategy and related tools. You can o check out our transition plan as agreed by the registries at the end of last ietf meeting (please disregard the dates, as we are behind) o down load ripe181 to rpsl policy converter or a RIPE database server that can handle rpsl objects o query a mirrored IRR for alredy registered 120,000 objects o query a mirrored IRR in RPSL format, yes we have converted all 120,000 - 15 objects to RPSL. What is up with these 15 objects, ask me! o use a web page based interface to convert RIPE181 policy objects to RPSL using cut and paste, or type in your RPSL object to validate its syntax. Note that syntax checker is still partial, but it can handle the most common cases. Please provide us feedback. The success of RIPE181 to RPSL transition depend on early detection of errors. Cengiz -- Cengiz Alaettinoglu Information Sciences Institute (310) 822-1511 University of Southern California http://www.isi.edu/~cengiz

1 0

Power Tool For Webmasters
by powertools＠cybertools.net 29 Jul '97

29 Jul '97

With over 30 million documents on the Web today, and thousands more being added almost hourly, it is now harder than ever for potential customers to find your place on the Net. Which is why we've developed the Web Promotion Spider for Windows 95 / NT . This amazing new software automatically submits your site to over 250 (the list grows daily) major search engines, directories, and Usenet newsgroups! Not only that, The Web Promotion Spider has the ability to dynamically optimize your website, ensuring maximum visibility on the Internet - at the same time recording all registration data in a built in database. Originally engineered for use by the professional advertising industry, this program is easy and intuitive to use. Beginners will be amazed at how simple it is to take complete control over their search engine and index marketing efforts. But don't be fooled by its simplicity! The Web Promotion Spider is an industrial strength marketing tool and an extremely valuable part of any on-line publicity campaign. With this kind of power, it should come as no surprise that many of our customers have built profitable on-line promotional businesses with this product and their existing Internet connection! But don't just take our word for it. The Web Promotion Spider is available now for FREE immediate download on a limited trial basis (shareware). Visit http://www.cybertools.net/spider /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// If you wish to be removed from future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from future mailings. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1 0

Re: Routing WG Minutes - RIPE 27, Dublin
by SchmitzJo＠aol.com 14 Jul '97

14 Jul '97

Dear Carol, you wrote: > >> RIPE 27 : Routing WG Draft Minutes > >> Chair : Joachim Schmitz (JS395-RIPE) > >> Scribe : Anne Lord (AL12-RIPE) > >> Attenders : 57 > >> [...] > >> 2. Hierarchical Authorisation / Cross Notification of Route Objects > >> in the IRR (Carol Orange) > >> > >> 2.1 Cross Notification [...] > >> After a fairly lengthy and interesting discussion, it was agreed to go > >> ahead with implementing the draft proposal given the following > >> modifications which were agreed: > >> > >> - the submitter of the route will always be notified as to whether the > >> object submitted was successful. Notification of overlaps can be built > >> into the acceptance/feedback message returned to the submitter. > >> > >> - for deleting a conflicting object, it was agreed to notify the > >> submitter of the conflicting object that there was no longer a > >> conflict in the database > >> > >> - notifications on overlap - either for newly submitted route objects, > >> or for deletions - will only be done for *existing* route objects if > >> explicitly requested by the "x-notify" attribute > > I've reworded the above adjustments as I understood them, and have > incorporated them in the newest version (to be submitted on the list). > You can keep whichever version you find clearer. They say the same > thing. > > - Whenever a route object is submitted in the RR, a notification > should be generated to the submitter if the address space overlaps > with any other route object in the RR. This is regardless of whether > the new attribute for cross notification is used. I agree with this one. However, I suggest to keep the note that the notifi- cation to the submitter is included in the acceptance/feedback message on the submission mail - this keeps mail traffic low. > > - If the address space covered in the route object matched the > address space in another route object, be sure this is clear in the > notification message. Agreed. > > - Notifications should be sent to the appropriate contact not only if > an overlap is introduced, but also when an overlap is eliminated. Again agreed. However, in your proposal I am missing a bit the distinction between the two parties involved: (a) the submitter, and (b) the owner of a route object which already exists in the RR and the new submission is in conflict with it. I try to think a bit more about the text and probably rewrite it taking your suggestions into account. [...] > >> > >> 2.2 Hierarchical authorisation in the RR (Carole Orange) > >> (or "aut-num authorisation for route objects in the RR") > >> > >> The proposal is documented in a draft document which was previously > >> circulated to the Database WG and Routing WG mailing lists. Agreement > >> on this proposal is now sought so that it can be implemented. > >> > >> The goal of the proposal is to allow network operators who announce a > >> route in their AS to delegate this authority to others. > > No, the goal is to allow network operators who maintain an aut-num > object to determine who can submit a route object with their AS number > as origin. Yes. We must change this in the minutes. > > >> There has been > >> much discussion on the mailing lists and a specific "non-goal" of the > >> proposal is to produce an optimal hierarchical authorisation scheme > >> for the RR. This proposal is not CIDR based; hence the change of name > >> for the draft to avoid any confusion about CIDR based hierarchy in the > >> proposal to "Aut-num authorisation for route objects in the RR". > >> > >> The proposal works briefly by the following mechanism: > >> > >> A "mnt-route" attribute (in former drafts called "mnt-lower") is added > >> to the aut-num object. Currently the "mntner" object referenced > >> determines who can add/update/delete an object associated with that > >> aut-num (for more details see the draft which can be found at the > >> reference above in the archives of the mailing list, or look at the > >> Working Documents section of the Routing WG at the RIPE web server). > > No, this is not the case. There are currently no restrictions on who > can add/update/delete a route object specifying a given aut-num in the > origin. The proposal is intended address this authorization gap, by > allowing network operators to specify these restrictions, and as you > state above, by also allowing them to delegate this authority if they > so desire. You are again right. Sorry, this slipped. [...] > >> > >> 5. Route Flap Dampening Parameters (Christian Panigl) [...] > What I miss in this summary is that there seemed to be consensus at > the meeting that "it is beneficial if everyone adopts the same > parameters, because it allows problems to be detected and addressed on > the home front." (but perhaps that was obvious, and I'm being picky.) No, you are not picky. I consider this an important point and will add it to the minutes. Thank you very much for your comments! Regards Joachim

1 0