Re: [Idr] draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer - Feedback requested

Jeffrey Haas <> Sun, 25 April 2021 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7AC3A00E9 for <>; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 12:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nuhMr_zWab0m for <>; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 12:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02E93A00E4 for <>; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 12:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8EEA51E45A; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:27:05 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <>, "idr@ietf. org" <>, Ben Cox <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer - Feedback requested
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:03:57 -0000


On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 06:01:06AM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> A long time of TCP zero window does not indicate a data plane
> problem, nor a problem with routes received from the stuck peer.
> The blockage is in one direction only. The local speaker is unable
> to end routes to the stuck peer, but is able to receive routes
> from the stuck peer just fine.

This tickles a related point:

If a peer has zero-windowed you, you are unable to send any ACK
frames to that peer.  This means that we're potentially in a very slow race
for the remote peer to eventually send enough data that it similarly zero-

At that point, the remote peer should eventually give up trying to transmit
as well. Locally, the hold timer would expire.

> Therefore, I would propose that the response of the local speaker
> should be to retain the routes of the stuck peer when it resets the
> session, GR style.

Having GR is a reasonable mitigation when you're not concerned about the
routes the local router having already been stuck for a very long time.

In some circumstances it may make better sense to get the router with the
misbehaving TCP session out of the forwarding path as possible.

-- Jeff