Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08, to end September 25

[Donatas Abraitis <[e-mail]>]

Hi, folks!

I want to get back to this draft and hear the final thoughts on this.
Speaking with some people in IETF118, this seems reasonable giving one more
chance. In short: there are already 4 or 5 open-source implementations
supporting this BGP capability, and Wireshark (maybe more from the
observability tools) has it too. The motivation is quite simple: very
trivial and fast to implement while giving a useful information set for the
operators.

Thanks!

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 9:46 PM Donatas Abraitis <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> >I think the name “version” is too close to the BGP version that peers
> negotiate.
>
> I disagree. "BGP version"  == Protocol version, while "Software Version"
> == Software, running BGP protocol, version.
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 7:01 PM Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Donatas,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the name “version” is too close to the BGP version that peers
>> negotiate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not use “debugging capability”?
>>
>>
>>
>> Linda
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Donatas Abraitis <[e-mail]>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2023 7:46 AM
>> *To:* Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; Gyan Mishra <
>> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for
>> draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08, to end September 25
>>
>>
>>
>> Quick update: IANA has assigned Software Version Capability number (75),
>> updated:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfc943f52c4ff4981008608dafeda80ad%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638102511702204675%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JIpgyvd7WKfFTLpZY%2FsAxJP5y9qGR5Ob7MTkCi61S9s%3D&reserved=0>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 1:19 PM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Linda,
>>
>>
>>
>> Per RFC4271:
>>
>> *A NOTIFICATION message is sent when an error condition is detected. **The
>> BGP connection is closed immediately** after it is sent.*
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a general statement. You can't take it out of the current
>> context.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Do most deployed implementations send “Subsequent OPEN” as you stated?
>>
>> *“Subsequent open would be tried without this new optional parameter”*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Again we are discussing the addition of a new extension. Such addition
>> can define in itself what implementation should do when receiving such a
>> NOTIFICATION message indicating that peer does not understand the new
>> extension.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rgs,
>>
>> R.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Donatas
>>
>
>
> --
> Donatas
>


-- 
Donatas