Re: [Idr] new thread regarding capabilities handling

Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <enkechen@cisco.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 D29C5129B40 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 7nw0VWayUfPV for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C75A112878D for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1782; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493326451; x=1494536051; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jxSdDWXwoielciUfkrRONpESui/R0B7My1pC8U8vjH0=; b=FdPZuymkoiVFkr/s2UH7Kk1SNBRAzWDv6DFmZh8hyYIqvi/UuhvVTJph kXWK2TnRjUsYBelxkgfBRxybt5kVtda9O5pWDZj6USW0ioimVrRwTaH7S mpASG97FtN4sYaIpDb8/TSFmCuE1O1s9X4cMbRYm2zdBJIYxWcK726vdo Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,385,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="241604638"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Apr 2017 20:54:11 +0000
Received: from [10.41.56.193] ([10.41.56.193]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3RKsAn2004319; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:54:11 GMT
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1704270713380.5591@uplift.swm.pp.se> <a7a10b72-2215-9968-e4c8-0592e29ce893@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1704270812470.5591@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20170427201736.GF22975@pfrc.org>
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, idr@ietf.org, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <e4ad3bd2-73cd-c1f7-6ef4-8bbd974974ae@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:54:10 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170427201736.GF22975@pfrc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eHmxsKe7s1dSazOroou8xzV0NMo>
Subject: Re: [Idr] new thread regarding capabilities handling
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 27 Apr 2017 20:57:46 -0000

Hi, Jeff:

On 4/27/17 1:17 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:14:07AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>>  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-14.txt
>>
>> So this is a draft first posted in 2001, with a last revision in 2011.
>>
>> What's the back story here? This is obviously a well-known
>> understood problem then for 16 years already, why don't we still
>> have this in 2017?
> 
> Part of the issue with dynamic caps was that they renegotiated capabilities
> in general.  The edge cases of having to rebuild everything dynamically that
> you could negotiate and still keep a peering session up was... ugly.
> 
> A simple example would be what would happen if you added or deleted the
> add-paths capability.

That is a reasonable summary.

> 
> I know there was discussion at one point to simplify the proposal to simply
> to allow new AFI/SAFI to be re-negotiated.

If there is sufficient interest, we can limit the capability to just AFI/SAFI
without much work.  With GR though the interest seems to have dropped.

Thanks.  -- Enke

> 
> The BGP multisession proposal tried to cover one other piece of the
> headache.  Today, if you get a failure in one AFI/SAFI, we tear down BGP.
> (You're allowed to "shut it down", but such well behaved failures are
> relatively few.)  By having different sessions for the AFI/SAFI, you get
> structural segregation of those classes of packet formatting errors.
> 
> The issues with multisession, aside from burning precious sockets, is that
> there's state that is really shared among the family types.  The question
> then becomes how you share that state appropriately when the sessions can
> move at different asynchronous paths.
> 
> -- Jeff
>