[routing-wg]RIPE 52 routing-wg minutes

[Joao Damas Joao_Damas@localhost]

With thanks to Arife Vural for taking the minutes, to my co-chair Rob  
Evans for making sure these got out there and to all who participated.
See you soon at RIPE 53 or on the mailing lists.

Joao Damas


Routing-WG, Istanbul 2006
Chair: Joao Damas
Date: 27 April, 2006 Afternoon Session

- Previous minutes were approved.

- Joao asked if there were any objections to Rob Evans being a
  co-chair of the WG.  No objections were raised.

- Philip Smith gave an update about Route Flap Damping obsoletion.

  http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52- 
routing-deprecating-ripe-229.pdf
  The document, co-authored with Christian Panigl has been sent to
  the mailing list, but no comments have been received yet.

  Randy Bush: I read the document, liked it. I proposed vendors to
  change the implementation based on Geoff's presentation earlier
  this week.
  [http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52- 
plenary-bgp-review.pdf]
  Gert Doering: I agree that the current way route-flap
  dampening is done is harmful.  We should start work on a new  
recommendation
  how to get these extreme prefix noise dampened, but not 'normal'  
activity
  Joao: WG already has consensus, only thing is left whether the
  text reflects what we agreed.  If so, let finish it.

- Philip Smith talked about a Route Aggregation BCP

  He will have something to  present next RIPE meeting about the
  recommendations.

- Andrei Robachevsky gave an update about Authorization of "route:"  
objects in the DB.
  It's an update about the discussion that was in DB-WG last month.

  http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52- 
routing-route-creation.pdf
  If the route-object holder change the provider, who will do the DB  
update?
  Ruediger: It's defined in RFC, and whois reflects that.

  Joao: We can change RFC and whois if it creates trouble.

  Ruediger Volk: Changing the procedure, I have not done the analysis
  of the consequences.

  Andrei Robachevsky: Need tweaking? Do we have to change paradigm?
  There is a work around, do best practice.

  Joao: Does anybody have any comments? I will summarize it, and to  
see the result.
- David Ward gave a presentation about service peering and BGP for
  Inter-domain QoS Routing.

  [Slides weren't working during meeting, they are available at:
  http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52- 
routing-bgp-qos-sicily.pdf]
  The proposal adds information on paths with varying QoS to
  inter-domain routing by adding it to BGP.

  Ruediger Volk: I'm not quite sure about the clarifications. This
  is for QoS for VPNS, does this apply IPv4?

  David Ward: Yes, it is. It is not tied to VPNs.

  Ruediger Volk: There is a scaling issue for BGP, did you take
  this into consideration while advertising same prefixes multiple
  times.

  David Ward: This is to be used between service sharing ISPs and
  not to be propagated globally through the Internet.

  Joao: Those messages are protocol specific?

  David Ward: Yes.

- Ruediger presented some suggestions on how to proceed with Routing
  Security, IRR based authorization, Black-holing.

  Joao: Do you have a proposal on how to change the behaviour?

  Andrei: These data is available is the form of stats file. It
  does not tell the who is doing the authorization.

  Joao: Let's see what RIPE NCC can do about it.

- Charter discussion:

  This was deferred due to lack of time at this meeting.

- AOB

  There was no other business.