Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08, to end September 25

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

> I'm willing to receive it and potentially just throw it on the floor. I
> might even be willing to burn the 255 bytes of space in a buffer in my bgp
> peer data structure for it after running it through the same sanitizer we
> do for RFC 9003.
>


If draft says that it can be send if it fits .. then if it does not fit it
can be suppressed automatically I do not see how anyone can take it
seriously and build any network automation around it.

Your math is off, especially in the face of extended optional parameters.
>

If you put it into rfc9072 then this is a different story. But currently it
is not. And it is not good to potentially push BGP critical capabilities to
extended space while free form text sits in the front among other 254
octets.

You are ok to punch holes in BGP Capability Negotiation for it ?
>
> This comment makes no sense.  Try again.
>

Section 3 of RFC5492 does not have exclusions.


> You are willing or not willing to suppres Unsuported Capability when such
> is received on non upgraded node ?
>
> You're encouraged to go re-read last paragraph of section 3 of RFC 5492.
>

Ok. Assume node is upgraded and such capability is disabled on a peer.

Rgs,
R.