Re: [Idr] TCP & BGP: Some don't send terminate BGP when holdtimer expired, because TCP recv window is 0

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi Job,


> Does everyone agree BGP-4 sessions MUST be terminated using a TCP RST
> (instead of a BGP-4 Cease NOTIFICATION) if the peer has indicated for
> the duration of the Hold Timer that the TCP receive window is zero?


Not quite.  I agree that the session should be terminated if the TCP receive window
is zero for the duration of the Hold Timer. Clearly the receiver is stuck and the
receiver should be terminating the connection. For robustness, it makes sense that
the transmitter also close the connection. 

I would prefer to see the transmitter do both: queue a NOTIFICATION and reset
the TCP connection. Yes, the NOTIFICATION will probably never make it out. The advantage
of doing it this way is that the code path for errors will be more consistent: always send
a NOTIFICATION before the RST. This code path is also likely to send appropriate signaling to
the management plane. This is also useful in debugging: if you go through the
message queue, the NOTIFICATION will be sitting there in the queue.


> Perhaps RFC 4271 Section 6.5 should be amended as following:
> 
> OLD:
>    If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE, UPDATE, and/or
>    NOTIFICATION messages within the period specified in the Hold Time
>    field of the OPEN message, then the NOTIFICATION message with the
>    Hold Timer Expired Error Code is sent and the BGP connection is
>    closed.
> 
> NEW:
>    If a system does not receive (or is unable to send) successive
>    KEEPALIVE, UPDATE, and/or NOTIFICATION messages within the period
>    specified in the Hold Time field of the OPEN message, then the
>    NOTIFICATION message with the Hold Timer Expired Error Code is sent
>    and the BGP connection is closed. If the NOTIFICATION message cannot
>    be send the BGP connection is closed.


Your proposed text does what I prefer, not what you suggested above. I would suggest
two edits: (1) remove then parentheses in the first sentence, they are unnecessary, and
(2) remove the last sentence.

Regards,
Tony