[RFE] bgp-route-policing

[vikram.choudhary]

[Existing problem]
Current BGP dynamic routing proposal [1]_ doesn't support route filtering. By Default, all the routes will be advertised. There is no way by which an admin can filter routes before advertisement.

[Proposal]
- Add route-policy support to BGP dynamic routing.

[Benefits]
- Adds flexibility for filtering routes per BGP peering session.
- Can provide more options for modifying route attributes, if required.

[What is the enhancement?]
- - Additional API, CLI and DB model will be added.

[Related information]
[1] Dynamic Advertising Routes for Public Ranges
    https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/mitaka/bgp-dynamic-routing.html

[Akihiro Motoki (amotoki)]

The feature which this RFE depends on is not yet implemented.
It is valid as a feature request, but the requested feature can be implemented during the current proposed implementation.

[Akihiro Motoki (amotoki)]

We need to revisit this after BGP-DR blueprint completes.

[Armando Migliaccio (armando-migliaccio)]

Thanks for the update. I think it's fair to say that until [1] is feature complete (blueprints implemented - i.e. basic code, tests, docs), bugs [2-7] are blocked. My suggestion would be to go and yell/help the assignee/approver of [1] and make sure that the work can complete successfully asap so that we can start focusing on 2-7 knowing on what grounds we can continue building.

[1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/bgp-dynamic-routing
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1509431
[3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1509436
[4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1527993
[5] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1528000
[6] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1528002
[7] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1528003

[vikram.choudhary (vikschw)]

Let's wait for driver's team confirmation..

[Ryan Tidwell (ryan-tidwell)]

We have given admins the ability to tune whether tenant prefixes and FIP host routes get announced. As we expand DVR support, I expect the same knob for tuning announcement of DVR fixed IP host routes to exist. Admins also control what gets announced by binding BGP speakers to specific external networks, and the address scope is used to determine what gets advertised.

I wonder if there's a use case for limiting announcements within an address scope. If so, I'd really be interested in having it spelled out for me. If an admin has an address scope for their tenants to use, what is the use case for limiting what gets announced within that address scope? If there are prefixes that should not be routed within an address scope, why couldn't an admin simply exclude those prefixes from their subnet pools? A tenant could still pick their own prefix outside the routable address scope and it would never be announced. Could someone expound on what knobs an admin may need that they don't already have?

[Armando Migliaccio (armando-migliaccio)]

Assumed that by the end of Newton (or sooner if possible) the BGP repo is up and running and rock solid based on the efforts put into Mitaka, I see no reason why these requests should not be vetted and addressed by the BGP team directly. So please make a recommendation.

[Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez)]

Bug closed due to lack of activity, please feel free to reopen if needed.