Re: [Idr] Capability Advertisement in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 09 August 2019 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B32C12002F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5p68jsPfrq0T for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82f.google.com (mail-qt1-x82f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35CC112002E for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82f.google.com with SMTP id d23so96589339qto.2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 10:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nDhO+DmnNRpfE88/K3cftHIBe3FN4/PC5jxpcjJHhwI=; b=Rpvp0HCuR/g81QU/7yHAhiBfX/IeK1fMg8TczTmdANOCERMN81ba1onNNKRKVPY7Tc YtOm4CF0HsPltZ/nZKV8fpgMdm4/FC5/eF+aWA0XDE3ZeSkutNPXkYtCcJbsr3Kk71f+ QHs7SdSckFSDnL4dOwZHdSyh1hfwV3bmFR7M52RIe7/NKrOPi1Iafu+rrqc1MJlijAM8 NOnRVhV1PsnMXAH7QJ4F6qkIpK3rMqprmZRj0kGtDf+oHNOj/YNqYsLqsBv4OlmhBQcq wTYIKP9rLhwyprtz1t7PRXxFAui4Hq5tUe9wEo3bYkDr8fDf7M4QhoNvem4agVhn7XbL cAlg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nDhO+DmnNRpfE88/K3cftHIBe3FN4/PC5jxpcjJHhwI=; b=lqHkDn5Q9avOr3JWdW3KPY1wGU/AJiOWn2A40z2BwofqXsmThpB48YcynR/2+WyXjF 3VuyPtQSpDOjzcznlFhp8+xrEaR33CeXPCvvgG/NZk200YTgxTsixh5siaBibzB9BRSf K3TX05v/aBWeb467+HcCECQbl5+dzncwJ/+8FcKCGCaxHVS6PuS6wNuiPq35uJfZFeiQ lleNReXao0JKSiOShLYpSrC4lXx6eUh5bnhe1RJ5e5F2dI23saTDifg+LLnZHm/V+VSq mcyqE8f+PslQ7oa/BhQmGzLQ5FmNwaBd/4dps+pf6TDVJQd+3HgXndkRxxRpnr7x8u4t TdtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVKQBa3JwYzc9rhp9+Ld7aX+F7ea9FV27eaX0ZM3f7PPF8XDgkz yqytMLrM65XqF3y+09tWVywQvMhHb1oRhqcvu8y8pg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyNk2/tuIFXkdIU1z3M3HCXp6tnzWHXNt+5xI2Npjz0pAgeY9I7qPUCtYnrlZhbmVIxdG8elHyWpdS2UxzgGD4=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2d67:: with SMTP id h94mr18763365qtd.154.1565371580039; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 10:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMESsyvuU8_dBOeoOXPBt=-HwoF0eHvYgm5d8CgF-4o_oiP=g@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESszw4PGXdQ+r0xhJaXMWF1J+BFxG_U3FPVrGBgnCTYdHNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMEJv3K3juuy9FWthMB-Yk7tYuU08D_wQ6h3gdo8q4dtqg@mail.gmail.com> <8BE36C2B-5B31-4416-A076-F498B94EC60A@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8BE36C2B-5B31-4416-A076-F498B94EC60A@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 13:26:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMHd=3wxfB68XWukrYcME_NbvXbCZ-XhLqLwKwTbbdHH2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Enke Chen (enkechen)" <enkechen@cisco.com>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f859c0058fb27857"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1qf9qhIc9FRGV2R9oqwGP6eqCyw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Capability Advertisement in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 17:26:26 -0000

Hi Enke,

if you insist on keeping this asymmetric the only possible solution in the
example I provided would be to have BGP Operational Message by definition
be of 65K and never even require capability exchange for that SAFI.

So if the draft in question makes capability optional I think we are good
to go.

Thx,
R,

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:31 PM Enke Chen (enkechen) <enkechen@cisco.com>;
wrote:

> Hi, Robert:
>
>
>
> If “A” sends a large message to “B”, and requests “B” to play back. Then
> “A” has to advertise the
>
> Large Message capability.   Is that not intuitive or logical?
>
>
>
> Thanks.  -- Enke
>
>
>
> *From: *Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
> robert@raszuk.net>;
> *Date: *Friday, August 9, 2019 at 9:24 AM
> *To: *Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;
> *Cc: *"idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>;, "
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org"; <
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org>;, Susan Hares <
> shares@ndzh.com>;, "idr-chairs@ietf.org"; <idr-chairs@ietf.org>;
> *Subject: *Re: [Idr] Capability Advertisement in
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages
>
>
>
> Hi Alvaro,
>
>
>
> So imagine that BGP Operational Message draft get's standardized and one
> TLV will ask to replay back the received message to the sender.
>
>
>
> Example: *3.4.3.3*
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-operational-message-00#section-3.4.3.3>*.
> Malformed Update Dump (MUD)*
>
>
>
> How is this going to work in this case when I receive over 4K PDU and can
> not mirror it back to sender per his request ?
>
>
>
> Aren't we getting ourselves into the trap here and "Oooops" condition by
> allowing this asymmetry ?
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:28 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>
>
> Thank you for everyone’s opinion and discussion!
>
>
>
> The current text in -35 says this:
>
>
>
>    A BGP speaker that is capable of receiving BGP Extended Messages
>
>    SHOULD advertise the BGP Extended Message Capability to its peers
>
>    using BGP Capabilities Advertisement [RFC5492].  A BGP speaker MAY
>
>    send Extended Messages to a peer only if the Extended Message
>
>    Capability was received from that peer.
>
>
>
>    An implementation that advertises the BGP Extended Message capability
>
>    MUST be capable of receiving a message with a Length up to and
>
>    including 65,535 octets.
>
>
>
>
>
> From the thread, the consensus is to keep the asymmetric capability
> advertisement.  As written, operators have the flexibility to advertise (or
> not) the capability to meet their local policy.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff brought up the point that rfc4271 (§6.3 / UPDATE Message Error
> Handling) says that, for some errors, the NOTIFICATION "Data field MUST
> contain the attribute (type, length, and value)."  The problem is that if
> an Extended UPDATE (> 4k) with an erroneous attribute is received from a
> speaker that hasn't advertised the Capability (which is ok because of the
> asymmetry), then that peer may not be able to handle an Extended
> NOTIFICATION (> 4k).
>
>
>
> NEW (to be inserted as the 3rd paragraph in §5 (Error Handling))>
>
>    The UPDATE Message Error Handling, as specified in Section 6.3 of
> [RFC4271],
>
>    is not changed.  However, if a NOTIFICATION is to be sent to a BGP
> speaker
>
>    that hasn't advertised the BGP Extended Message Capability, the maximum
> size
>
>    of the message MUST NOT exceed 4096 octets.
>
>
>
>
>
> Authors: If no word-smithing suggestions are received in the next couple
> of days, please submit a revised draft by the middle of next week.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
> On July 31, 2019 at 4:06:04 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> On July 31, 2019 at 1:31:11 PM, Susan Hares (shares@ndzh.com) wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear WG:
>
>
>
> As I hope all of you know, the Extended Messages draft is being processed
> by the IESG.
>
>
>
> Enke had brought up [1] some confusion in the text in rfc5492 related to
> the need, or not, for both BGP speakers to advertise a Capability before it
> can be used.  I discussed this point with Enke and John Scudder last week
> in Montreal — we looked at the text in the RFC and how recent Capabilities
> had been specified — and concluded that the intent of the RFC was to
> require at least one speaker to advertise the Capability…but that it should
> be the responsibility of any document defining a Capability to explicitly
> specify any changes.
>
>
>
> IOW, in some cases it may be enough for one of the peers to advertise a
> Capability, but in other cases it may be required for both to do so.
>  [Enke/John will work on an Update to rfc5492 to clarify.]
>
>
>
> Related to Extended Messages, here’s is what Enke proposed on the list [2]:
>
>
>
>    As long as Speaker A is able and willing to receive large messages (by
> advertising
>
>    the capability), its neighbor would be allowed to send such messages to
> Speaker A.
>
>    Such behavior does not depend on whether Speaker A is able / willing /
> need to
>
>    send any large messages to its neighbors.
>
>
>
>
>
> We have modified the text in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages to
> reflect Enke’s proposal (from -35):
>
>
>
>    A BGP speaker that is capable of receiving BGP Extended Messages
>
>    SHOULD advertise the BGP Extended Message Capability to its peers
>
>    using BGP Capabilities Advertisement [RFC5492].  A BGP speaker MAY
>
>    send Extended Messages to a peer only if the Extended Message
>
>    Capability was received from that peer.
>
>
>
>    An implementation that advertises the BGP Extended Message capability
>
>    MUST be capable of receiving a message with a Length up to and
>
>    including 65,535 octets.
>
>
>
>
>
> During the IESG Evaluation, Sue pointed out that we removed the piece of
> text below:
>
>
>
> Just to let you know that the text below:
>
>
>
> “A peer which does not advertise this capability MUST NOT send BGP
>
>
>    Extended Messages, and BGP Extended Messages MUST NOT be sent to it.”
>
>
>
> was added due to comments on the IDR WG list from reviewers and
> operators.
>
> Given that Extended Messages is a very important extension to BGP, and
> even though I didn’t see objections in the thread mentioned above, I want
> to confirm one more time that the current text is ok with the WG.  The
> effective change is really related to the piece that says "A peer which
> does not advertise this capability MUST NOT send BGP Extended Messages”,
> which would require that both peers advertise the Capability before it can
> be used.
>
> Please reply with any comments by end-of-day on August 8, 2019.  Please
> explain any arguments against what is currently specified in -35.   The
> document is scheduled to be considered by the IESG on Aug/8, but I will
> hold approving publication until there is consensus on this thread.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vaBLOKHQZlRCiJOMTT8VjJrWp7c
>
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/K5rA5rVci6VhMv5-UqXXaoRlvXo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>