IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 28 April 2021 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 CD5CE3A0928 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 06:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 ZQCFjkEcIX0H for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 06:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C143A0945 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 06:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 219B51E455; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 09:46:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 09:46:45 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, Ben Cox <ben=40benjojo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210428134644.GC17737@pfrc.org>
References: <CAL=9YSVy+mvxvAv+maxkUSzPbe0bfnUy-XJJTtcVhi3S3bm=WQ@mail.gmail.com> <20210423212348.GB19004@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMGH+y-gxSLaakknWSPFLEk9ikkUU1fa=3H0FjkokAbg3w@mail.gmail.com> <20210424004838.GC19004@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMH5yzpPZjdUcfXV4cxCORqCsQY4X+niBjnwxjPfN-tsJA@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB3207E4A0BDC3367E21886C55C0439@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20210427124724.GA21146@pfrc.org> <BYAPR11MB32077A59B783B81E5D4D2297C0409@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB32077A59B783B81E5D4D2297C0409@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MCvcggPYZenI5CVHKZhkber7p9Y>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer - Feedback requested
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, 28 Apr 2021 13:23:29 -0000

Jakob,

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:15:52AM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> I think the draft should have a discussion section to list all the
> points we made in this thread to give operators a good base on which
> to decide their own configurations.
> 
> I think the default should be a long timer and to retain the routes
> when resetting the session. However, this choice should be configurable.

One of the things I think is valuable about the discussion is it likely
belongs in a document for users of TCP for routing - and perhaps other
applications.  BGP tends to just be the most visible "victim" of these sort
of problems:
- The sessions are long-lived.
- The amount of data is modest, but the timeliness requirements are
  important.
- The routing system is negatively impacted when this sort of congestion
  occurs.

I don't think we have strong consensus for what BGP should do when these
problems occur, but we're starting to build quite the attack tree for the
scenario.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email