Re: HE.net BGP origin attribute rewriting

[Daniel Suchy <danny () danysek cz>]

On 05/31/2012 07:06 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2012-05-31 08:46 -0700), David Barak wrote:
>
> > On what precisely do you base the idea that a mandatory transitive attribute of a BGP prefix is a "purely advisory 
> > flag which has no real meaning"?  I encourage you to reconsider that opinion - it's actually a useful attribute, 
> > much the way that MED is a useful attribute.  Many providers re-write MED, and apparently some re-write ORIGIN.  
> > Neither of those is "network abuse" - it's more accurately described as "network routing policy."  As has been 
> > stated here before: your network, your rules.
>
> When provider rewrites MED, they do it, because they don't want peer to
> cause them to cold-potato, to which they may have compelling reason.
> Then some clever people realise they forgot to rewrite origin, working
> around the implicit agreement you had with them.

You CAN rewrite MED, as stated in RFC 4271, section 5.1.4 - but you
SHOULD NOT change origin attribute, as stated in section 5.1.1. So, in
terms of rewriting, MED is not comparable to origin.

I think RFC 4271 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271) is very clear
here. Back to the standard, why condone it's violation? Yes, statement
about origin is here since January 2006 - older RFC 1771 didn't contain
similar rule. But 6 years after publishing I think everyone had enough
time to implement this correctly.

I still think, that professionals shoult follow RFC and not insert their
own creativity to places, where's not expected - just because they
decide that as a "cool" idea. For local routing policy - there're still
lot of knobs, which can be used internally (typically MED, LOCPREF) to
enforce expected policy and there's technically no reason to change origin.

--
Daniel