IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] RFC-compliant use of Extended Length for new BGP attributes

"Vishwas Manral" <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 13 March 2008 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CBE28C1D0; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p0eMbZhY14PZ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1C63A6B35; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772443A6B9B for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rdLklXQqHSe for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.171]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60203A6B35 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so3780163wfa.31 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=D59bafnTGKyOWQs0L/NQytOdbf5irh2fKuIuswTBvmY=; b=c5UsBesq2I9dFG29nuTJhFq/5dvbrF4UNw2iYNpOAtPp7aZsq1wrpFlASsrgXg9IIdhl2ASmdrs51dK54Ayfft5hmMq79fLzG3yjjcjsLPY8iE4s0+IOsYnICru2EBzJOT02XpwFnDDJAvNypm7fOLg24X0/MkHDv+4O9PfTtDc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=xcX9YEE7CO0PgX4wjEMvELii8+z4qukaZwJCS1Pi5uZ7ltbPuKp1lJdsJDj/CFWk+qF0RnhbSVG+hNod3R9lFFdTzLs0lfIuWhaz/0+IqyEO55d5TAAoX3CYQHbzDy1gadZnLr0diQTnw8nGijs933BtKRoNvWcOt7rjNtSyvgc=
Received: by 10.142.78.10 with SMTP id a10mr4538299wfb.37.1205431884858; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.164.14 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <77ead0ec0803131111uea50018sb209bcd5f9f1e10c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:11:24 -0700
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080313175645.GA23909@scc.mi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20080313154849.GL18190@equinix.com> <77ead0ec0803131008i6915cf91g8801970eb444a63e@mail.gmail.com> <20080313173705.GN18190@equinix.com> <20080313175645.GA23909@scc.mi.org>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] RFC-compliant use of Extended Length for new BGP attributes
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Jeff,

>  > This could cause a packet malformed if the implementaion uses RFC1771 where
>  > Extended Length bit is being checked before sending the update.
>
>  The packet is well formed.  As you say, by 1771 rules, it is
>  semantically incorrect.  The only implementation I would expect to do
>  anything about this would be the ones run by conformance validation tools.
I agree to all you say. However I would say all implementations
following RFC1771 strictly would break.

Thanks,
Vishwas
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email