Re: [Idr] Capability Advertisement in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages

Jeffrey Haas <> Wed, 31 July 2019 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38BDE12002F; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P1IKoSDOm9pR; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB30A120018; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A11D91E2F5; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:16:02 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:16:02 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <>,,, Susan Hares <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Capability Advertisement in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:14:09 -0000

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 01:06:04PM -0700, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> During the IESG Evaluation, Sue pointed out that we removed the piece of
> text below:
> Just to let you know that the text below:
> “A peer which does not advertise this capability MUST NOT send BGP
>    Extended Messages, and BGP Extended Messages MUST NOT be sent to it.”
> was added due to comments on the IDR WG list from reviewers and operators.
> Given that Extended Messages is a very important extension to BGP, and even
> though I didn’t see objections in the thread mentioned above, I want to
> confirm one more time that the current text is ok with the WG. 

I am fine with the current text, although my opinion is nuanced.

By requiring bi-directional advertisement of the capability, UPDATEs sent
from one can have NOTIFICATIONs of similar size.  This avoids some ugly edge
conditions that would result from uni-directional advertisement of the

The converse argument, which I'm not supporting, is that uni-directional
advertisement intentionally lets peers opt-out of receiving extended
messages, even it understands them.

Let the bi-directional requirement stand.

Note that RFC 6793 (4-byte ASes) require bi-directional advertisement.

-- Jeff