Re: [Idr] Clarification on RFC4271 section 5.1.5 - is LOCAL-PREF mandatory or discretionary
Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com> Wed, 12 July 2006 04:22 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0WEn-0005G0-8A; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:22:13 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0WEl-0005Fs-UA for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:22:11 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0WEj-0006TR-8K for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:22:11 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-7.cisco.com ([171.68.10.88]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2006 21:22:09 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,230,1149490800"; d="scan'208"; a="1837598230:sNHT35214372"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-7.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6C4M84p029437; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:22:08 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k6C4M8nc025980; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:22:08 -0700
Received: from [10.21.96.203] ([10.21.96.203]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:22:05 -0700
Message-ID: <44B478E6.2080201@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:21:58 -0700
From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>
Organization: http://raszuk.net/
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gregory hoggarth <gregory.hoggarth@alliedtelesyn.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Clarification on RFC4271 section 5.1.5 - is LOCAL-PREF mandatory or discretionary
References: <44B4D861.E0D5.005D.0@alliedtelesyn.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <44B4D861.E0D5.005D.0@alliedtelesyn.co.nz>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2006 04:22:05.0979 (UTC) FILETIME=[BBA336B0:01C6A56A]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=4004; t=1152678128; x=1153542128; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim7002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=raszuk@cisco.com; z=From:Robert=20Raszuk=20<raszuk@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20[Idr]=20Clarification=20on=20RFC4271=20section=205.1.5=20-=20is= 20LOCAL-PREF=0A=20mandatory=20or=20discretionary; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DFpDo/XzCEaNjELDBEAZKXrJyt88=3D; b=ccLw6lGD39lvvIfW673OSjkcKq8fxAOgmirCt+QYwFXU3ejFYNdFYAw3RefXJ2zxcEc8M/0M Lz6EEJe7FgorCFSQLRm7A/07VMfrdsOCJatpr78dOwDMGYCP3KbBylbi;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-7.cisco.com; header.From=raszuk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be
Cc: idr@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Gregory, It all depends what you goal here is ... * If you are deep into finding semantical and syntactical specification wording traps resulting in reasons to not implement Local_Pref as a mandatory attribute you may find all possible mismatches between BGP specs and perhaps get away with it. * If on the other hand your goal is to come up with to some extend at least interoperable BGP implementation I would highly recommend to look at section 3.14 of BGP-4 implementation report http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4276.txt where the answer to your question is clear. Local_Pref is send to all IBGP peers and is a mandatory bgp attribute. It is part of best path so while one could assume missing local_pref is equal to def value it is not the case in well known bgp implementations I am aware of. Cheers, R. > Hello everyone, > > I've been working on a BGP implementation which is currently failing a > third-party test that is assuming that the LOCAL-PREF attribute is a > well-known mandatory attribute while the implementation is assuming that > it is discretionary. RFC4271 does not make the definition 100% clear, > especially because in RFC1771 this attribute is described as being > well-known discretionary. > > Section 5.1.5 from RFC4271 states: > > LOCAL_PREF is a well-known attribute that SHALL be included in all > UPDATE messages that a given BGP speaker sends to other internal > peers. A BGP speaker SHALL calculate the degree of preference for > each external route based on the locally-configured policy, and > include the degree of preference when advertising a route to its > internal peers. > > The SHALLs seem to make this fairly clear, however note that it merely > says "well-known attribute". Other attributes, such as ORIGIN say > "well-known mandatory attribute". Also, in the table at the top of page > 25, LOCAL_PREF is listed as being "required" for IBGP, but this is never > actually defined anywhere as to what this means. Again in section 4.3 e) > on page 19, it only says "well-known attribute", whereas on the same > page NEXT_HOP is described as "well-known mandatory" and > ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is described as "well-known discretionary". > > In RFC1771 LOCAL_PREF is defined on pages 15 and 23 as being > "well-known discretionary". > > The current way the implementation works is based on RFC1771, but as > RFC4271 is ambiguous as to how LOCAL_PREF should be handled, I am unsure > as to whether the implementation needs to be changed. > > Currently, if an update message that does not include the LOCAL_PREF > attribute arrives from an iBGP neighbour, the default or > administratively-defined LOCAL_PREF value for the receiving router is > assigned to the advertised route. This seems like a good compromise in > my opinion. The third-party test suite is expecting that in this > situation, the device will return a notification message that incidates > the attribute was not included in the update. > > So, according to RFC4271, is LOCAL_PREF a mandatory attribute, at least > for iBGP peer communication? Is my current approach to the lack of this > attribute in an update sensible and acceptable? > > > Thanks, > Greg > > NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential > information intended only for the use of the addressee > named above. If you are not the intended recipient of > this message you are hereby notified that you must not > disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. > If you have received this message in error please > notify Allied Telesis Labs Ltd immediately. > Any views expressed in this message are those of the > individual sender, except where the sender has the > authority to issue and specifically states them to > be the views of Allied Telesis Labs. > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
- [Idr] Clarification on RFC4271 section 5.1.5 - is… gregory hoggarth
- Re: [Idr] Clarification on RFC4271 section 5.1.5 … Robert Raszuk
- RE: [Idr] Clarification on RFC4271 section 5.1.5 … Tony Li