Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution

Rob Shakir <> Wed, 20 May 2015 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449CC1A88C1; Wed, 20 May 2015 08:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.391
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JUzV6TQwrowl; Wed, 20 May 2015 08:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0C111A87BF; Wed, 20 May 2015 08:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=corretto.local) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1Yv67o-0007M1-49; Wed, 20 May 2015 16:41:40 +0100
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:42:02 +0100
From: Rob Shakir <>
To: "=?utf-8?Q?" <>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
Message-ID: <etPan.555cab4a.3e5241e6.b56b@corretto.local>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Airmail Beta (307)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="555cab4a_438606bd_b56b"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?" <>, "=?utf-8?Q?" <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:41:59 -0000

On 19 May 2015 at 22:58:10, Alvaro Retana (aretana) ( wrote:
6.2.2 (Fault Management). "If an implementation of BGP-LS detects a malformed attribute, then it SHOULD use the 'Attribute Discard’ action..”  Doesn't this mean that the information may be useless, completely missing, or in the best case incomplete?  Aren’t we better off just resetting the session or at least requesting a route refresh?

Sorry — I completely disagree here. If we consider that this information might be sharing a BGP session with another AFI,SAFI that is significantly more critical to network operation, this kind of meta data SHOULD NOT impact that other AFI,SAFI’s routing.

Based on this, session reset as a default behaviour is really not acceptable to me from an operational perspective.

For the record, I agree with the other comments about scaling/isolation - and argued these to start with the authors. Ultimately, if we are going to have the ability for BGP-LS to share sessions with other routing information, then robustness is something that has to be a critical concern.

Kind regards,