IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
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 B798112DAB7 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 04:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 It9OJ_B2UhGz for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 04:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E16712DAD6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 04:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1824; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464175850; x=1465385450; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=vWcLQA7MjAexrp//5T9jga98Ij2AqZDHl7i/S6pgC3k=; b=XXN+t4fIgiFkQCeyab7F/NuDoSYvBAkWYaVPs1wIaXckjSXLtsR5fEWX nII4W4JRlCE3a7Pv/L4sQqV9cWq2w6yz3WVurr8pQz1pACAuzePVdTDq5 +7aZ/TNgvIvZNqKHcxEEQIJGlDSNA7VYXidPTCbeFEByK304jLSTZJbNm 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D5AQCki0VX/5tdJa1bgzdWfQa5cQENgXYXC4VvAhyBHzgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEQBAQQBAQEgEToLEAIBCBoCJgICAiULFRACBAENBYgvDrJokXIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXBYEBiXKEP4MBglkFmDcBjh+BaYRPiGSPSwEeAQFCg21uiQh/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,364,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="277534715"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 May 2016 11:30:49 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4PBUnMo006550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 May 2016 11:30:49 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:30:48 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:30:48 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Gunter Van De Velde <guntervandeveldecc@icloud.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)
Thread-Index: AQHRtnjiLezA7m/5nUql2FPqnNN57w==
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:30:48 +0000
Message-ID: <D36B03BE.6256F%acee@cisco.com>
References: <037f01d1b5fc$bfb596f0$3f20c4d0$@ndzh.com> <3F1E4C52-A3EF-48E0-A1F9-E5A3A71658B5@alcatel-lucent.com> <m2vb22qyvd.wl%randy@psg.com> <73AB7C41-FA1D-42AB-9D5E-CE7BB37413BB@icloud.com> <m2twhmqxml.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2twhmqxml.wl%randy@psg.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <334122A0F8D34847B4AE21B972B443F5@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2WZcxdLDS_xR6eakvyYYS6uG7_8>
Cc: idr wg list <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:30:56 -0000


On 5/25/16, 5:45 AM, "Idr on behalf of Randy Bush" <idr-bounces@ietf.org
on behalf of randy@psg.com> wrote:

>>>> Section 5 – par1: When using the more liberal policy, I believe it
>>>> would make sense to indicate a message that an extended message was
>>>> received while it was not expected at all
>>> 
>>> please be specific.  by "indicate a message" are you suggesting a new
>>> "you sent a surprise" response message?
>> 
>> Yes, indeed… something in a syslog or so that the peer sent some
>> unexpected packet to alert the ops team to look into it.
>
>so you do not mean a bgp message, but rather that errors should be
>logged and maybe an snmp trap raised.  so, if we start to add a short
>sentence or paragraph on this to the end of section 5, how far do you
>want to go?  is there something to which we could point?

FWIW - In RFC 7684, we merely added the following text for unexpected
OSPFv2 encodings: 

    This situation SHOULD be logged as an error.
or:
    This situation SHOULD be looked as a warning.

We intentionally left out the details on the mechanisms used for logging
or how the messages should be used.

Thanks,
Acee


>
>randy
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idr mailing list
>Idr@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email