IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: bgp4-17 Cease subcode

Vincent Gillet <vgi@zoreil.com> Tue, 15 January 2002 14:08 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA22955 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:08:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CCA929124D; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:07:46 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 8E6E09124E; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:07:46 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5374A9124D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:07:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 210C45DDA0; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:07:45 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from utopia.opentransit.net (utopia.opentransit.net [193.251.151.78]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7248C5DD9F for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:07:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from utopia.opentransit.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by utopia.opentransit.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) with ESMTP id g0FE7B77024230; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:07:11 +0100
Received: (from vgi@localhost) by utopia.opentransit.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) id g0FE7BAv024229; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:07:11 +0100
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:07:11 +0100
From: Vincent Gillet <vgi@zoreil.com>
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: bgp4-17 Cease subcode
Message-ID: <20020115140711.GA23937@opentransit.net>
References: <20020114123700.C7761@nexthop.com> <200201141750.g0EHo3634958@merlot.juniper.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200201141750.g0EHo3634958@merlot.juniper.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Yakov,

> > Is the expoential backoff in the FSM in current implementations?
> 
> I guess we are going to find this out as part of the implementation
> report. And if it is not in (at least two) current implementations,
> we'll take it out of the text.

I implemented Cease subcode in zebra-0.92a but not exponential backoff.
I checked that new subcode does not put other BGP stack in trouble
(checked Cisco and Juniper).

I have to clean-up patch and wait for another implementation to test
interoperability.
I am in touch with one vendor.

> > Note that this change (IdleHold) to the FSM is going to result in
> > an alteration to the MIB.  This is one of the reasons I've held
> > off completion of the RFC 1657 update - to accomodate for this fact
> > to converge.
> 
> Understood.

Sub-code implementation does not depend on backoff.
Draft only suggest that speaker should have such mechanism. It is
on the way with bgp4-17 draft.

Vincent.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email