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 14:29 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 1301812D71E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ljRgXyAH4cRu for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C81512D71C for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16341; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464186561; x=1465396161; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=fIrOqL00J2rucEQBx1dWc0eLTBVmKpDwbpZOVI+BgR0=; b=VSaOV/ckv6EDwM1JoQdpF/UawXgGVEnF+tGnRPy09iauG0XpQQZn09l4 Kl+QlrVAWmFa0K9/9EkIG3F8b8yWrFlA9sjRMrZh8NHmiVWDIButtEXdw Iiufd7yLPG5RVWVEy24GbD9j/ribyZGxsTgz/JdftUcrhqVlPREWLGP0m M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BBAgBRtUVX/5RdJa1cgmxLgVMGrgKGdoR5AQ2Bd4YRAhyBIjgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEMBAQEEI1YQAgEGAhEDAQIoAwICAh8RFAkIAgQOBYgVAxeVL50djT8NhCkBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEBAQEdiXCBA4JDghyCYYJZBZM3hE0zAYwmgXmBaY0zhjOBMYdnAR4BAUKDbW6JCH8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,364,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="276258508"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 May 2016 14:29:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (xch-rtp-017.cisco.com [64.101.220.157]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4PETJKL021857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 May 2016 14:29:19 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:29:18 -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 10:29:18 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)
Thread-Index: AQHRtnpy331Rj2Oog02xXFi+9aCxRZ/JzUiA///pZAA=
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:29:18 +0000
Message-ID: <D36B2E2D.625D3%acee@cisco.com>
References: <037f01d1b5fc$bfb596f0$3f20c4d0$@ndzh.com> <13146_1464170675_574578B3_13146_4888_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0F8CD227@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CA+b+ERmdpCmCsP-5_NsLH6pbay4zaXMpjGJP2S3z8gfAAXZR8A@mail.gmail.com> <D36B06A7.6257D%acee@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERkioULCYg_HQK9qqN+wjiapTZxK7nHWLGaq_=8wfxajsA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERkioULCYg_HQK9qqN+wjiapTZxK7nHWLGaq_=8wfxajsA@mail.gmail.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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D36B2E2D625D3aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4dE8jN6sDtB6-3xHl-62Q5SBwtQ>
Cc: "Keyur Patel (keyupate)" <keyupate@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <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 14:29:26 -0000

Hi Robert,

From: <rraszuk@gmail.com<mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 7:50 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com>>, "Keyur Patel (keyupate)" <keyupate@cisco.com<mailto:keyupate@cisco.com>>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)

Hi AC,

Yes indeed - you are right - I was a bit hit with "relay" term :).

And since this entire work started with the assumption that packing per NLRI will be broken anyway one could expect this to be always the case.

So it does look like a bit of show stopper to me unless we enforce that if there is at least one BGP peer on given BGP speaker not supporting 64K all sessions will get reset to 4K max. Ugly but not sure what other options can address it. Perhaps authors will come up with better one.

Since this is likely to be an extremely rare occurrence, I’d simply not advertise the NLRI to a peer not supporting extended messages and log the error.

Additionally, we could discourage the generation of a single NLRI exceeding 4K.

Thanks,
Acee



Thx,
R.



On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:


From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:34 AM
To: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com>>
Cc: "Keyur Patel (keyupate)" <keyupate@cisco.com<mailto:keyupate@cisco.com>>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)

Hi Bruno,


Suppose that I receive an extended BGP message (e.g. update) that I can’t relay

to some peers because they don’t support such extension, while I “should” have

relayed it.

​BGP does not "relay" messages .. do you have some new BGP draft in mind which would work as BGP "repeater" ? While I recall we discussed it in the past that work were pretty much abandoned :)

BGP generates messages at each BGP speaker so the above seems like non issue to me for this draft.

A non-issue unless the size of a single NLRI and its attributes exceeds 4K.
Thanks,
Acee



​
​Best,
R.

For the draft itself: Support ​from me.