Re: [Idr] Notification Subcode Squatting (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy)

Alvaro / All

As Cisco plans to progress the multi session draft we should to look for a
new subcode.

Q1: Should a new subcode be requested for the Role Mismatch Notification
    specified in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy?

[X]: Yes.
[ ]: No, the squatters should update their implementations.
[ ]: Something else.

Q2: What should we do with subcode 8?

[ ]: It should be deprecated (i.e., no one can use it).
[ ]: Write a specification for an "unsupported AFI/SAFI" Notification.
[X]: Something else.

Cisco has taken ownership of the sub code to progress.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:20 PM Jeffrey Chiang (jefchian) <jefchian=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Cisco has implemented
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-multisession-07
> many years ago. We are using the subcodes as stated in the draft, but
> offset by one, because at the time (and now still), subcode 7 was already
> used. They are
> 8 - Capability Value Mismatch (was called "No Supported AFI/SAFI" in
> version 00)
> 9 - Grouping Conflict
> 10 - Grouping Required
> We would like to resurrect the draft and progress it to RFC.
> Are there any other implementations?
>
> Regards,
> Jeffrey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 7:41 AM
> To: 'Alvaro Retana' <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; idr@ietf.org
> Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Notification Subcode Squatting
> (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy)
>
> Alvaro:
>
> Documenting what is out there and pragmatism is the best policy.
>
> Q1. Something else
>
> If Cisco has been squatting on the subcode 8, cisco experts should let us
> know: 1) how widely it is deployed, and 2) how difficult to change.
> If Bird, the same questions apply.
>
> Pragmatism
>
> Q2. (b) Deprecating the code and (c) working with pragmatism to get actual
> implementations to registered code.
>
>
> Sue
>
> PS - +1 to what Jeff Haas says as well.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 3:53 PM
> To: idr@ietf.org
> Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy@ietf.org; Susan
> Hares
> Subject: [Idr] Notification Subcode Squatting
> (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy)
>
> Dear idr WG:
>
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy is currently in IETF Last Call.
>
> This document specifies a new Role Mismatch Notification (code 2, subcode
> 8).  This value was initially allocated by IANA in 2018 [1].
>
> Unfortunately, Alexander (cc'd) just pointed out that BIRD uses the same
> code and subcode combination for a Notification in the case where an
> AFI/SAFI is not supported. :-(  As far as I can tell, no such Notification
> is specified anywhere.  However, a quick search points at cisco potentially
> implementing the same functionality [2] [3] [4] -- some of these reports go
> as far back as 2010.
>
>
> What now?
>
> Given that there seem to be multiple deployed implementations that use
> this code/subcode combination, we should avoid using it even if they are
> squatting on it. :-(  Also, BIRD was one of the two reported
> implementations for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy.  So I propose that we
> request IANA to assign a different value for the new Notification specified
> in this document.
>
> Before moving forward, I want to confirm that the WG agrees with the
> proposal.  Please take a look at the questions below.  I would like to hear
> from implementers at BIRD and cisco (and any other that I didn't find that
> might be in the same situation), and from FRR (the second implementation of
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy).
>
>
> Q1: Should a new subcode be requested for the Role Mismatch Notification
>     specified in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy?
>
> [ ]: Yes.
> [ ]: No, the squatters should update their implementations.
> [ ]: Something else.
>
>
> Q2: What should we do with subcode 8?
>
> [ ]: It should be deprecated (i.e., no one can use it).
> [ ]: Write a specification for an "unsupported AFI/SAFI" Notification.
> [ ]: Something else.
>
>
> I will keep this poll open until Jan/5, 2022.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-6
>
> [2]
> https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing/bgp-3-notification-erro/td-p/1572684
>
> [3] https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs/201607/msg00164.html
>
> [4] https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCsu79206
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*