[Idr] RFC4724: Clarification on Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP
Tulasi Rami Reddy N <tulasi.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 27 February 2019 17:39 UTC
Return-Path: <tulasi.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9FEE13101F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:39:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id violn0QYu9rb for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 265D3130EDF for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id g20so5631367wmh.5 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:39:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=dQNZIdzknwFviwBTMue7rtRBICkA0Z/WFEwT78fJdac=; b=rU8enzt7LEM3e0Jlho7zfJZVnJnFaR7SY5rdQC53fim8oYhZEcgfhXt2Yn9MvBuHlR HoRZItgou+xuvf1g3qF+5WbfxXB4BT2XRNqhT657254pTrbGLpX0XYzLViLy6F6SRWHH /20sl1xx2d8+H3HAX1wMcikJXcLSArm2UxBHLKkCuPqYHFvqWZTPtihpJLYISerXtTU+ EhO9rk1jFhfaHP+PbaU1b/RpaVJBzU77PlWUUfwx2VKBtxXfC7zhjfcbnyt6sBYo6ZT0 HekfcSs4KR5vxaJu8QT8qpcr1+DvS2QixB06rU7ao/8i247JcIrAUoKdwz1/sNp75tvt 6AuA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=dQNZIdzknwFviwBTMue7rtRBICkA0Z/WFEwT78fJdac=; b=PDDcbFcHB1ai89Mzw1BFuaY2eNTKgQeNPE9/IYFJG7Xtbs4y13RBma8f4VF73BFB3x YAXKX3h5+S1bG6HPRIvcbIrp+FggTp5wc48eVboTcccaNCqLDZfrH40jfTAr407CcbU7 gw57Ex404V0LPoZreDbleKbDxuQF27KHHb2ITZbhVoTgZH6Vc/b+KZXCJTe/HVYRitsr YBo6e5+ryqe+RJFsCkairkz5tKtYz1Bv5MSh5t6l34UJyV7RS6yuZ/rqMS0DMXBkdTMT FTGnWy2/efzMkW2mWW+wo9N7gESNKSA25s6o5heyt1RIM4iTj1AL+EFWvucFAJ8n/+/L B17A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZsHdrgRj1uYZJF1Jk8/IYeE3In9+SjoGLWjUyowy4mdkMfy1dj EpFa6UUQICL2R4E9hk+tPqPVt1MUTJxYHP765u1v/FPRaqY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYJJdScNudTIN0SY2VnSg5xuC+IeyeLqQpH4+UTfFVGl2FZZzzBpXZ8j5Muwe3ebrZA9Ohvbgq/6FTmx9i9SXE=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c92e:: with SMTP id h14mr303296wml.26.1551289160216; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:39:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Tulasi Rami Reddy N <tulasi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 23:09:07 +0530
Message-ID: <CAJePrfd-ByMGT7G=Y0X7F=q+O9vW+bwmAV5TBCOFZDc=PDA9+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000056b5d10582e3a798"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KeEup0-1AFdKeMSkUlIGwzHxNgs>
Subject: [Idr] RFC4724: Clarification on Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:39:25 -0000
Hi All, I see below info in sec 4.2 of RFC4724. Can this be generalized, saying any capability mismatch? For example: If add-path capability is not received for some AF in the re-established session, should we retain the stale marked routes till EoR and then stale cleanup? *<snip>* *4.2. Procedures for the Receiving Speaker>* *if a specific address family is not included* *in the newly received Graceful Restart Capability, or if the Graceful* *Restart Capability is not received in the re-established session at* *all, then the Receiving Speaker MUST immediately remove all the stale* *routes from the peer that it is retaining for that address family.* *</snip>* Tulasi.
- [Idr] RFC4724: Clarification on Graceful Restart … Tulasi Rami Reddy N