Why MinRouteAdverInterval is recommended 30

Hello, idr

    I am a graduate student and hope you kindly give
me some help.
	I have a question on MinRouteAdverInterval:
    Why MinRouteAdverInterval is recommended to
 be 30 seconds? 
    Is it right to say that the Maximal Propagation 
Delay in Internet is almost less than 30 seconds, 
so MinRouteAdverInterval is set to 30 seconds to 
guarantte the furthest route change can be caught 
before sending the relevant update?
    Thank you very much!
Have a nice day!
 				

　　　　　　　　Qiu Jian
　　　　　　　　qiu <at> ns.6test.edu.cn
　　　　　　　　　　2002-11-01

RE: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt

This is obviously an "uncontrolled copy", but *I think* it is current.
Also, refer to the "RE: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v1.5" email sent on
Monday, October 28, 2002 7:00 PM for info on the proposed changes. 
I am assuming that this current version was removed because the
new version is to be posted shortly.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parag Deshpande [mailto:paragdeshpande <at> sdksoft.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:57 PM
> To: idr <at> merit.edu
> Cc: Susan Hares
> Subject: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am unable to locate the latest bgp draft on ietf site. 
> Where can I get it?
> I would appreciate if someone could just mail it to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Parag
> 
> 

Network Working Group                                      Y. Rekhter
INTERNET DRAFT                                       Juniper Networks

Re: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt

Jonathan,

> This is obviously an "uncontrolled copy", but *I think* it is current.
> Also, refer to the "RE: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v1.5" email sent on
> Monday, October 28, 2002 7:00 PM for info on the proposed changes. 
> I am assuming that this current version was removed because the
> new version is to be posted shortly.

In fact, I submitted the -18 version on Wednesday.

Yakov.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parag Deshpande [mailto:paragdeshpande <at> sdksoft.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:57 PM
> > To: idr <at> merit.edu
> > Cc: Susan Hares
> > Subject: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt
> > 
> > 
> Hi,
> > 
> > I am unable to locate the latest bgp draft on ietf site. 
> > Where can I get it?
> > I would appreciate if someone could just mail it to me.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Parag
> > 

RE: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt

Yakov,

	If you look, it seems as if a mistake has been
made.  The web site:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt

indicates that this ID has been removed due to expiry.

	My understanding has been that the ID administrator 
would not normally remove expired working group drafts
(such as this one) without explicit agreement from a WG
chair.  But, if you look, the existence of this draft is
no longer indicated on either the WG Charter page or the
ID index page (below).  What gives?

  http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/idr-charter.html
  http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idr-charter.html
  http://www1.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/idr.html
  http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/idr.html



Eric W. Gray
Systems Architect
Celox Networks, Inc.
egray <at> celoxnetworks.com
508 305 7214

Re: Why MinRouteAdverInterval is recommended 30

On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 03:37:42PM +0800, Qiu Jian wrote:
>     Is it right to say that the Maximal Propagation 
> Delay in Internet is almost less than 30 seconds, 

This is a matter of some debate.

> so MinRouteAdverInterval is set to 30 seconds to 
> guarantte the furthest route change can be caught 
> before sending the relevant update?

Theoretically, this means that if a route is still reachable (feasible),
then you will delay sending changes to the route.  This will
cause the entire routing system (in this case, possibly the Internet)
to have potential for blackholes and forwarding loops due to these
timers for some period of time.  The following paper goes into 
some details on this:

http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm2000/conf/paper/sigcomm2000-5-2.pdf

--

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

Re: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt

I'll check with the secretariat.
Thanks for pointing this out.

-- 
Alex

Friday, November 01, 2002, 6:01:22 AM, Gray, Eric wrote:
> Yakov,

>         If you look, it seems as if a mistake has been
> made.  The web site:

>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt

> indicates that this ID has been removed due to expiry.

>         My understanding has been that the ID administrator 
> would not normally remove expired working group drafts
> (such as this one) without explicit agreement from a WG
> chair.  But, if you look, the existence of this draft is
> no longer indicated on either the WG Charter page or the
> ID index page (below).  What gives?

>   http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/idr-charter.html
>   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idr-charter.html
>   http://www1.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/idr.html
>   http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/idr.html

> Eric W. Gray
> Systems Architect

RE: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt

>	My understanding has been that the ID administrator 
>would not normally remove expired working group drafts
>(such as this one) without explicit agreement from a WG
>chair.

I've never head of that.  -17 was submitted in January (at least, the
timestamp on my copy is January 8) and its footers say that it expired
in July 2002.  It also said, in the boilerplate that we all ignore,

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time

So, it's been more than 6 months, -17 was expired.  In my 7 years as a
WG chair I don't think that the secretariat has ever checked with me
before removing a WG draft that had expired.

  Bill

Fwd: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route scope control to BCP

IDR folks,

 Please sanity-check this document.
 Thank you.

-- 
Alex

This is a forwarded message
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>
To: 
Cc: ptomaine <at> shrubbery.net
Date: Sunday, November 03, 2002, 8:06:40 AM
Subject: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route scope control to BCP

===8<==============Original message text===============

The IESG has received a request from the Prefix Taxonomy Ongoing
Measurement & Inter Network Experiment Working Group to consider NOPEER
community for BGP route scope control
<draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-00.txt> as a BCP.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
iesg <at> ietf.org or ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2002-11-17.

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-00.txt

===8<===========End of original message text===========

BGP security in practice

Lots of you folk probably read the rpsec list as well, but for those who
don't, there's a discussion going on of how many ISP's use the MD5 shared
secret form of authentication.  The response are, uh, disheartenting.
I've attached one message that says that some ISP's are ignorant of the
existence of security problems.  That beggars the imagination.

In the judgement of those on this list, is the general ISP as clueless
as this?  Mind you, I'm not asking if the common ISP uses the MD5, just
if they know that there's a security vulnerability if they don't.

And then the second question is how many ISP's do use the MD5 authentication
and whether it varies by distance from the backbone.  (Please tell me that
the major backbone carriers use this!)

--Sandy

From rpsec-admin <at> ietf.org  Mon Nov  4 05:40:04 2002
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:24:49 +0100
From: Birger Toedtmann <btoedtmann <at> exp-math.uni-essen.de>
To: rpsec <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Re: draft-convery-bgpattack-00
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-BeenThere: rpsec <at> ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>,
	<mailto:rpsec-request <at> ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements  <rpsec.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rpsec <at> ietf.org>

RE: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt

Bill,

	My mistake.  Apparently, some working group
chairs have directly interceded in the past, since
it has been the case at least a few times, that a
draft has passed WG last call and taken more than
18 months to progress to the next step.

	If it is not the policy of the Secretariat 
(or their designate) to check with WG chairs, it
should be.  By definition, once a draft has been
accepted by the WG, it belongs to the WG.  Why
should it be subject to expiry as a result of an 
author or editor being unable to rev' it?

Eric W. Gray
Systems Architect
Celox Networks, Inc.
egray <at> celoxnetworks.com
508 305 7214

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Fenner [mailto:fenner <at> research.att.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:53 PM
> To: egray <at> celoxnetworks.com
> Cc: yakov <at> juniper.net; JNatale <at> celoxnetworks.com;
> paragdeshpande <at> sdksoft.com; idr <at> merit.edu
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt
> 
>