Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param/
draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-05

On 3/7/17 3:49 PM, Enke Chen wrote:
> Please check out the following document:
> 
> Extended Optional Parameters Length for BGP OPEN Message
> draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-02
> 
> -- Enke
> 
> On 3/7/17 3:44 PM, Borchert, Oliver (Fed) wrote:
>> I am wondering – according to RFC 4271, how can an OPEN message ever exceed 284 bytes?
>> The bgp message header has 19 bytes and the OPEN message payload adds 10. This is 29, then the only 
>> addition here are the Optional Parameters which cannot exceed 255 bytes combined due to the 1 byte length field.
>>
>> Therefore, an open message cannot exceed 284 bytes and if larger than 284 bytes, wouldn’t it be invalid. 
>>
>> In this regard, I don’t really understand the whole discussion about allowing an OPEN message larger than 4K. 
>> It shouldn’t even be larger than 284 bytes?  Maybe I am missing something.
>>
>> BTW, same is true for KEEPALIVE (max 19 bytes)
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/7/17, 1:45 PM, "Idr on behalf of Enke Chen" <idr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of enkechen@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi, Folks:
>>     
>>     o There is no extra work for a receiver to cover message types other than UPDATE.
>>     o There is a little bit work for a sender that wishes to send a large OPEN (e.g.,
>>       using the prior capability and possibly subsequent NOTIFICATION).
>>     
>>     Additionally, I do not see a need to touch on the FSM specified in RFC 4271 even
>>     in the case of sending a large OPEN, which potentially may involve two separate
>>     consecutive sessions but each session would just follow the existing FSM.
>>     
>>     Thanks.   -- Enke
>>     
>>     On 3/7/17 7:32 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
>>     > Robert:
>>     > 
>>     > <individual contributor’s hat on>
>>     > 
>>     > Yep  - Easier to just include all messages.  
>>     > 
>>     >  
>>     > 
>>     > Sue
>>     > 
>>     >  
>>     > 
>>     > *From:*rraszuk@gmail.com [mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk
>>     > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2017 10:33 AM
>>     > *To:* Susan Hares
>>     > *Cc:* Randy Bush; Enke Chen; Jeffrey Haas; Alvaro Retana (aretana); idr-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org; idr wg
>>     > *Subject:* Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20
>>     > 
>>     >  
>>     > 
>>     > Hi Sue,
>>     > 
>>     >  
>>     > 
>>     >> My suggestion is to include all messages including future messages if approved.  
>>     > 
>>     >  
>>     > 
>>     > Ahh then it is great - we are in sync ! 
>>     > 
>>     >  
>>     > 
>>     > My other comments were just an opinion ... but if it is easier to extend all messages then perfect. 
>>     > 
>>     >  
>>     > 
>>     > Cheers,
>>     > 
>>     > R.
>>     > 
>>     >  
>>     > 
>>     >  
>>     > 
>>     
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Idr mailing list
>>     Idr@ietf.org
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>     
>>