Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy: IPR call and call for implementations

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 04 June 2020 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 8CF513A0E5D; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 10:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.225
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 MapfV3yVCpf7; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 10:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (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 90B713A0E5C; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 10:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.170.22.63;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Eugene Bogomazov'" <eb@qrator.net>, "'Keyur Patel'" <keyur@arrcus.com>
Cc: "'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>, "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy@ietf.org>
References: <017501d62b19$deaf5e60$9c0e1b20$@ndzh.com> <m2mu68r9h6.wl-randy@psg.com> <9503C5A8-966B-4866-B27F-4F78E601FC7B@arrcus.com> <CANX+VdDfmnx_upUonPrzFVv=V7fPDruFX3htMrq5JWhJ8ZXB_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANX+VdDfmnx_upUonPrzFVv=V7fPDruFX3htMrq5JWhJ8ZXB_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 13:02:58 -0400
Message-ID: <029501d63a92$0085c010$01914030$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0296_01D63A70.79761BE0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQIGv78oqr4APBkLcETZ/gjdCKe0DgFc2NcoAZ1Z1X8BYKDzq6hEtFzQ
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200603-2, 06/03/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YYb2_zMUSdbArvsYvwO20ISrpQI>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy: IPR call and call for implementations
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: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 17:03:23 -0000

Eugene:

 

I’m pleased to hear the updated implementation is published on:  

https://github.com/error2407/frr

 

We’ll start the WG LC this evening.  

This delay is to allow you to answer the following questions on the FRR implementation. 

 

1) Do you have configuration syntax for your open policy? 

 

https://github.com/error2407/frr/blob/open_policy/doc/user/bgp.rst

 

I could not readily tell where you put the configuration for open policy. 

It seems like it would be in the peer section. 

Perhaps you could provide a link to the appropriate configuration section 

 

2)Could you please fill out the implementation report 

 (on the IDR Wiki for FRR for open-policy)?  

 

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy

 

If you do not have time to fill out the wiki, could you 

Please send me the implementation information listed below. 

]

Without 2 implementations, the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy 

will not be forwarded to the IESG.  At this time we only have FRR

as an officially mentioned implementation.  

 

Cheerily, Sue  

 

Implementation Information

============================

The questions are below 

 

1)  What Roles do you support in your configuration? 

[see section 1, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy] 

 

Provider, customer, RS (Route Server), RS-Client, Peer? 

 

2) Do you support the following: 

[see section 4, 5 of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy] 

 

a) sending (XMT) of BGP Open  with a BGP Role capability  

b) receiving a BGP Open with a BGP Role Capability

c) reject Open with Role Mismatch + 

    connection Rejection notification [Code 6, subcode 5]  

d) receive and process a rejected open 

   with Role Mismatch + connection rejection notification 

e) in strict mode configuration, 

      reject connection that does not have BGP Role 

     with  a) Connection rejection notification [code 6, subcode 5]  

 

f) receive a connection rejection notification [code 6, subcode 5] 

   without Role mismatch

 

3)  BGP Path Attribute – BGP Only to Customer 

 

a) sending transitive BGP Path Attribute – BGP Only to Customer  

b) receiving transitive BGP Path Attribute – BGP Only to Customer  

 

 

4) Have you tested this with another implementation? 

If so which one? 

 

5) Have you any concerns about the error handling? 

 

Cheerily, Susan Hares 

 

From: Eugene Bogomazov [mailto:eb@qrator.net] 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:20 AM
To: Keyur Patel
Cc: Randy Bush; Susan Hares; idr@ietf. org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy: IPR call and call for implementations

 

The promised updated implementation on frr can be found at https://github.com/error2407/frr

Dear chairs, can you advise when the WGLC will be announced?



 

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:19 AM Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> wrote:

I am not aware of any IPR on this draft or it’s content or ideas.

Regards,
Keyur 

> On May 15, 2020, at 5:48 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> This is an IPR Call for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt.
>> 
>> The authors should send in a IPR statement to the list - even if you have
>> send in an IPR call during adoption.  
> 
> i am not aware of any ipr on this draft or its content or ideas.
> 
> randy