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

Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <enkechen@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 4FE021294A6; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:51:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 11nk7Q2cqPl5; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3352129444; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:51:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3172; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1488930682; x=1490140282; h=subject:cc:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=crEna49HySQG6yPxYIf/kv2sehzXFaUDXHGVtpl8AMY=; b=T5+1tRZnHKhSjJJVtJ16FTLLzSGeuekcaEz9cmbkrTZ3s7sOiEQP3DSw Yuu2IEJTmhVAwcMANr3yY0lXo4ZT9tx6o+iAg5qO2WCXv7+dCBcFJ2i5R pbn4Q46hMqWFXunG48/mnfET1r5gg+9DFeANO7E5spJIEVKQLmABLw83z c=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,260,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="215599206"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Mar 2017 23:51:22 +0000
Received: from [10.41.57.142] ([10.41.57.142]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v27NpLdH030984; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 23:51:21 GMT
References: <DAEE98CC-8483-499E-B71C-FE4C6FC15A4A@cisco.com> <20170228210627.GB17448@pfrc.org> <3eb4d853-1d44-6250-c70a-26f60eac39e6@cisco.com> <006e01d296db$a7c4c320$f74e4960$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ERmddHoq+4FmU+Ct3MhH46om8yUt69EoQMyLnzweHF=JgQ@mail.gmail.com> <010101d2974a$8520d060$8f627120$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ERnejrof2dfvb4YuKpWieLxWOF7mTXkZpaOgJc=y=2V+XA@mail.gmail.com> <018c01d29756$c8b4f610$5a1ee230$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ER=r6tF3t-THjN_zz5hOLETRV5MjpcoEo+79exeafWBNfQ@mail.gmail.com> <01b301d29758$180458e0$480d0aa0$@ndzh.com> <e2fd2bc1-94fa-66fb-e2f0-668ee5a1f1a1@cisco.com> <CE23F9A0-DC7B-4AC1-A6E4-6BF5A287B71D@nist.gov> <7657b686-0685-9bdf-17ba-e7d618a237aa@cisco.com>
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <f3c1ba27-56c5-5994-8c58-5f2fbb4875e0@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:51:21 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7657b686-0685-9bdf-17ba-e7d618a237aa@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/3U137zQfZly3cYMgiEc_SmTqcFY>
Cc: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>, 'Robert Raszuk' <robert@raszuk.net>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20
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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 23:51:24 -0000

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
>>     
>>