Re: Issue 18
Mathew Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com> Fri, 31 January 2003 23:39 UTC
Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22448 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:39:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8B5F49128E; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:34 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 52D3E9128F; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:34 -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 2E8DE9128E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0E1075DF8F; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:33 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838A95DDDD for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0VNgPF61980; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com)
Received: from paradigm.nexthop.com (mrichardson.nexthop.com [64.211.218.45]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0VNgLC61973; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com)
Received: (from mrr@localhost) by paradigm.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VNgLD23810; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:21 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:21 -0500
From: Mathew Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com>
To: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net
Cc: idr@merit.edu, curtis@fictitious.org, yakov@juniper.net
Subject: Re: Issue 18
Message-ID: <20030131234221.GC24158@nexthop.com>
References: <20030130153113.L25084@demiurge.exodus.net> <20030131170413.GA24158@nexthop.com> <20030131144131.A256@demiurge.exodus.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030131144131.A256@demiurge.exodus.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
> andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> [Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:41:31PM -0800]: >Although I don't want to extend the time this issue is still open, I have >to agree with mrr here. The text, as it stands is not as clear as >the text mrr is proposing, or the text I proposed a while back. Of the >two alternates, I prefer mrr's text, since it states more clearly that >the comparison is optional. > >Is there any compelling reason NOT to go with one of these two? > >> If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a >> route into IBGP, then if MULTI_EXIT_DISC comparisons are performed > ^^^^^^^ "and if" better? Yes, definitely. >> during tie-breaking, the routes that will have their MULTI_EXIT_DISC >> attributes removed before readvertisement in IGBP MUST be treated >> as having been received without a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. > > >or > >> If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a >> route into IBGP, then comparison based on the received MULTI_EXIT_DISC >> attribute MAY still be performed. If an implementation chooses to >> perform this comparison, then the comparison MUST be performed only >> among EBGP learned routes, and it MUST be performed before the removal >> of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. <snip> mrr 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 SAA13930 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:43:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8B5F49128E; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:34 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 52D3E9128F; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:34 -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 2E8DE9128E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0E1075DF8F; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:33 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838A95DDDD for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0VNgPF61980; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: from paradigm.nexthop.com (mrichardson.nexthop.com [64.211.218.45]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0VNgLC61973; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: (from mrr@localhost) by paradigm.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VNgLD23810; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:21 -0500 From: Mathew Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com> To: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net Cc: idr@merit.edu, curtis@fictitious.org, yakov@juniper.net Subject: Re: Issue 18 Message-ID: <20030131234221.GC24158@nexthop.com> References: <20030130153113.L25084@demiurge.exodus.net> <20030131170413.GA24158@nexthop.com> <20030131144131.A256@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030131144131.A256@demiurge.exodus.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> [Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:41:31PM -0800]: >Although I don't want to extend the time this issue is still open, I have >to agree with mrr here. The text, as it stands is not as clear as >the text mrr is proposing, or the text I proposed a while back. Of the >two alternates, I prefer mrr's text, since it states more clearly that >the comparison is optional. > >Is there any compelling reason NOT to go with one of these two? > >> If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a >> route into IBGP, then if MULTI_EXIT_DISC comparisons are performed > ^^^^^^^ "and if" better? Yes, definitely. >> during tie-breaking, the routes that will have their MULTI_EXIT_DISC >> attributes removed before readvertisement in IGBP MUST be treated >> as having been received without a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. > > >or > >> If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a >> route into IBGP, then comparison based on the received MULTI_EXIT_DISC >> attribute MAY still be performed. If an implementation chooses to >> perform this comparison, then the comparison MUST be performed only >> among EBGP learned routes, and it MUST be performed before the removal >> of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. <snip> mrr 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 RAA11715 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 42AA791261; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:44:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 105899128B; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:44:35 -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 EE47391261 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CBEAE5DFA9; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:44:34 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4016D5DE64 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA00946; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:41:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:41:31 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: Mathew Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu, curtis@fictitious.org, yakov@juniper.net Subject: Re: Issue 18 Message-ID: <20030131144131.A256@demiurge.exodus.net> References: <20030130153113.L25084@demiurge.exodus.net> <20030131170413.GA24158@nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20030131170413.GA24158@nexthop.com>; from mrr@nexthop.com on Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 12:04:13PM -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Although I don't want to extend the time this issue is still open, I have to agree with mrr here. The text, as it stands is not as clear as the text mrr is proposing, or the text I proposed a while back. Of the two alternates, I prefer mrr's text, since it states more clearly that the comparison is optional. Is there any compelling reason NOT to go with one of these two? > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > route into IBGP, then if MULTI_EXIT_DISC comparisons are performed ^^^^^^^ "and if" better? > during tie-breaking, the routes that will have their MULTI_EXIT_DISC > attributes removed before readvertisement in IGBP MUST be treated > as having been received without a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. or > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > route into IBGP, then comparison based on the received MULTI_EXIT_DISC > attribute MAY still be performed. If an implementation chooses to > perform this comparison, then the comparison MUST be performed only > among EBGP learned routes, and it MUST be performed before the removal > of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. Andrew On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 12:04:13PM -0500, Mathew Richardson wrote: > Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu > Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:04:13 -0500 > From: Mathew Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com> > To: idr@merit.edu > Cc: curtis@fictitious.org, yakov@juniper.net > Subject: Issue 18 > In-Reply-To: <20030130153113.L25084@demiurge.exodus.net> > User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i > X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 > Precedence: bulk > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 > tests=AWL,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, > SPAM_PHRASE_02_03,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT > version=2.43 > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2003 17:08:55.0107 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F8D8130:01C2C94B] > > While in the process of writing this reply, I received Yakov's e-mail > stating that the issue is closed. I'm sending this along anyways, > if only to make my position clear for the record (since I do think > that the proposed wording is open to two different interpretations.) > > > andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> [Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:31:13PM -0800]: > > <snip> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >18) MED Removal Text > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > <snip> > > >Siva replied: > > > > How about this: > > > > % If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > > % route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC > > % attribute may (MUST?) be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. > > % This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the > > % MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute must then > > % be removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and > > % which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with IBGP > > % learned routes. > > > > I think this reflects our objectives, which is: > > > > a) If MED is to be removed, compare EBGP routes based on the MED > > > > b) Then remove the MED > > > > c) Then do comparison with IBGP routes > > <snip> > > I think my real disagreement is with this list of objectives. In > particular, I think the option to perform tie breaking as > normal, treating routes whose MEDs will be removed as having been > received without a MED, should be included. > > Despite that, and despite assertions to the contrary, the most > recently proposed text (other than mine ;)) is open to two > interpretations: > > <snip> > > >Matthew responded to this with: > > > > I think this new text is ambiguous. > > > > >Here is the text that will go in the next version of the draft: > > > > > > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > > > route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC > > > attribute MAY be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. > > > > This could be taken to mean either that the comparison may be performed, > > and if it's performed it must be performed only between EBGP learned > > routes, or that the comparison must be performed, but it may be performed > > only between EBGP learned routes. > > <snip> > > To clarify, what the "MAY" applies to is not clear. > > It could apply to either the act of comparing, or it could apply to > the exclusion of IBGP learned routes from the comparison. > > Regardless, what I'd really like to see is something like: > > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > route into IBGP, then if MULTI_EXIT_DISC comparisons are performed > during tie-breaking, the routes that will have their MULTI_EXIT_DISC > attributes removed before readvertisement in IGBP MUST be treated > as having been received without a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. > > but if that's unacceptable, I'd be willing to settle for something like: > > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > route into IBGP, then comparison based on the received MULTI_EXIT_DISC > attribute MAY still be performed. If an implementation chooses to > perform this comparison, then the comparison MUST be performed only > among EBGP learned routes, and it MUST be performed before the removal > of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. > > <snip> > > >Curtis replied to Yakov's message: > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > I see no need to change "This comparison MUST be performed before the > > removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute". There is no implication > > that MULTI_EXIT_DISC must be removed and the first sentence clearly > > indicates that doing so is not required therefore no ambiguity. > > The ambiguity is not whether MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes must be > removed or not, it's whther MULTI_EXIT_DISC comparison must be performed > including the received MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes (that will be > removed). > > <snip> > > mrr 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 QAA08737 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:39:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7C3CE9125E; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:38:32 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4DF3E9128B; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:38:32 -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 113209125E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:38:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id EBF9E5DEA2; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:38:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from pengo.systems.pipex.net (pengo.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.193]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB8B5DE96 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:38:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from tom3 (userbf78.uk.uudial.com [62.188.142.99]) by pengo.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 603F14C0014D; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:36:57 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <000a01c2c970$a62ecbc0$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>, "Susan Hares" <skh@nexthop.com> Cc: "idr" <idr@merit.edu>, "andrew" <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> Subject: Re: bgp19 issue 13 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:35:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue and Andrew In case you wondered, I sent this before I got the revised Issues 2.2 list. Having now read the list, I still have the concern about missing next state for Active state events 13, 14 and 17. Issue 46 did also pick up the question of what state we go to from Active event 17 and suggested Idle. Yes fine, but it also said move the discussion to 13.4 and I see nothing in 13.4 about it; so I fear this may be lost. Also, from the issues list, I see I never received Sue's last e-mail on Issue 45, Connect state event 17 which I reference below. Tom Petch nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com -----Original Message----- From: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Cc: idr <idr@merit.edu> Date: 31 January 2003 20:35 Subject: bgp19 issue 13 >Sue > >I am concerned we may lose part of issue 13; I raised this as there >being seven places where the next state was missing (which I see as >wrong for the FSM we have). > >Of the seven, I think two have consensus, three you have proposals >outstanding but two may be slipping away. > >For Connect state, events 15/16 we have consensus ie stay in Connect >state (issue 13.1) > >For Active state, events 15/16, we have consensus ie stay in Active >state (issue 13.3) > >For Connect state event 14, you have proposed rejecting the connection >and awaiting the connect retry timer; I assume that this means stay in >Connect state (fine with me - issue 13.2) > >For Open Confirm event 18, Jeff proposed discarding the FSM, you >suggested Idle state (I prefer Idle - issue 13.6) > >For Active state event 17 (TCP failure), you have asked implementors >for Active v Idle (without much response on the list); I think rather >that as and when we have consensus for Connect state event 17 (Issue >45) where there was a next state but we have now refined that >depending on the Open Delay timer, the logic we arrive at for Connect >state may also apply to Active state for event 17. > >But that leaves two which still concern me (and which I think of as >part of issue 13.4). > >Active state (waiting for a connection) event 13 (SYN received) I >think we should respond as for the Connect state (ie send SYN-ACK) and >stay in Active state > >Active state event 14 (TCP connection invalid) I would go back to Idle >state - we haven't reached first base with this peer - but the >alternative would be to stay put in Active (like we stay put in >Connect for Connect state event 14). > >You have suggested events 13 and 14 be optional; fine, but we still >need next states for them. > >Tom Petch >nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com > > 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 PAA06114 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:35:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 14DE29128A; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:34:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AF1FF9128D; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:34:31 -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 A77F79128A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 87E795DE96; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:33:12 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net (shockwave.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5672E5DE35 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from tom3 (usermg17.uk.uudial.com [62.188.122.3]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 721FF160010F8; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:33:10 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <001901c2c967$bd0dae00$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Susan Hares" <skh@nexthop.com> Cc: "idr" <idr@merit.edu> Subject: bgp19 issue 13 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:30:24 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue I am concerned we may lose part of issue 13; I raised this as there being seven places where the next state was missing (which I see as wrong for the FSM we have). Of the seven, I think two have consensus, three you have proposals outstanding but two may be slipping away. For Connect state, events 15/16 we have consensus ie stay in Connect state (issue 13.1) For Active state, events 15/16, we have consensus ie stay in Active state (issue 13.3) For Connect state event 14, you have proposed rejecting the connection and awaiting the connect retry timer; I assume that this means stay in Connect state (fine with me - issue 13.2) For Open Confirm event 18, Jeff proposed discarding the FSM, you suggested Idle state (I prefer Idle - issue 13.6) For Active state event 17 (TCP failure), you have asked implementors for Active v Idle (without much response on the list); I think rather that as and when we have consensus for Connect state event 17 (Issue 45) where there was a next state but we have now refined that depending on the Open Delay timer, the logic we arrive at for Connect state may also apply to Active state for event 17. But that leaves two which still concern me (and which I think of as part of issue 13.4). Active state (waiting for a connection) event 13 (SYN received) I think we should respond as for the Connect state (ie send SYN-ACK) and stay in Active state Active state event 14 (TCP connection invalid) I would go back to Idle state - we haven't reached first base with this peer - but the alternative would be to stay put in Active (like we stay put in Connect for Connect state event 14). You have suggested events 13 and 14 be optional; fine, but we still need next states for them. Tom Petch nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com 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 MAA28036 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:09:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 626DC9127B; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:04:31 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A285E91280; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:04:28 -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 49E8F91284 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 26D3D5DE20; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:04:19 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7D95DDA4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:04:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0VH4Gn51776; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:04:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: from paradigm.nexthop.com (mrichardson.nexthop.com [64.211.218.45]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0VH4DC51768; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:04:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: (from mrr@localhost) by paradigm.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VH4Dw06411; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:04:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:04:13 -0500 From: Mathew Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Cc: curtis@fictitious.org, yakov@juniper.net Subject: Issue 18 Message-ID: <20030131170413.GA24158@nexthop.com> References: <20030130153113.L25084@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030130153113.L25084@demiurge.exodus.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk While in the process of writing this reply, I received Yakov's e-mail stating that the issue is closed. I'm sending this along anyways, if only to make my position clear for the record (since I do think that the proposed wording is open to two different interpretations.) > andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> [Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:31:13PM -0800]: <snip> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >18) MED Removal Text >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- <snip> >Siva replied: > > How about this: > > % If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > % route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC > % attribute may (MUST?) be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. > % This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the > % MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute must then > % be removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and > % which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with IBGP > % learned routes. > > I think this reflects our objectives, which is: > > a) If MED is to be removed, compare EBGP routes based on the MED > > b) Then remove the MED > > c) Then do comparison with IBGP routes <snip> I think my real disagreement is with this list of objectives. In particular, I think the option to perform tie breaking as normal, treating routes whose MEDs will be removed as having been received without a MED, should be included. Despite that, and despite assertions to the contrary, the most recently proposed text (other than mine ;)) is open to two interpretations: <snip> >Matthew responded to this with: > > I think this new text is ambiguous. > > >Here is the text that will go in the next version of the draft: > > > > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > > route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC > > attribute MAY be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. > > This could be taken to mean either that the comparison may be performed, > and if it's performed it must be performed only between EBGP learned > routes, or that the comparison must be performed, but it may be performed > only between EBGP learned routes. <snip> To clarify, what the "MAY" applies to is not clear. It could apply to either the act of comparing, or it could apply to the exclusion of IBGP learned routes from the comparison. Regardless, what I'd really like to see is something like: If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, then if MULTI_EXIT_DISC comparisons are performed during tie-breaking, the routes that will have their MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes removed before readvertisement in IGBP MUST be treated as having been received without a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. but if that's unacceptable, I'd be willing to settle for something like: If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, then comparison based on the received MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY still be performed. If an implementation chooses to perform this comparison, then the comparison MUST be performed only among EBGP learned routes, and it MUST be performed before the removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. <snip> >Curtis replied to Yakov's message: > > Looks good to me. > > I see no need to change "This comparison MUST be performed before the > removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute". There is no implication > that MULTI_EXIT_DISC must be removed and the first sentence clearly > indicates that doing so is not required therefore no ambiguity. The ambiguity is not whether MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes must be removed or not, it's whther MULTI_EXIT_DISC comparison must be performed including the received MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes (that will be removed). <snip> mrr 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 LAA27359 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:51:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0742A9127D; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:49:38 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 69D4F9127B; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:47:06 -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 EEBC991260 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:46:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D1B1A5DF31; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:46:55 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632D75DDA4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:46:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0VGklS18664; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:46:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200301311646.h0VGklS18664@merlot.juniper.net> To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 18 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:38:10 EST." <200301220238.VAA62527@workhorse.fictitious.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <63745.1044031607.1@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:46:47 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Curtis, > > Here is the text that will go in the next version of the draft: > > > > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > > route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC > > attribute MAY be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. > > This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the > > MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute is then > > removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and > > which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with > > IBGP learned routes. > > > > Yakov. > > > Looks good to me. > > I see no need to change "This comparison MUST be performed before the > removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute". There is no implication > that MULTI_EXIT_DISC must be removed and the first sentence clearly > indicates that doing so is not required therefore no ambiguity. > Adding a "If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed" to the second > sentence would be redundant. with this in mind, and taking into account the absence of any objections since your posting the issue is closed (no changes to the text). Yakov. 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 HAA18210 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4B0059125F; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:13 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 16A7291260; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:13 -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 9CEA29125F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8B8EF5DF42; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:08 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E9D5DE43 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA05013; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:51:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301311251.HAA05013@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idr@merit.edu From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-restart-06.txt Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:51:34 -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP Author(s) : S. Ramachandra, Y. Rekhter, R. Fernando, J. Scudder Filename : draft-ietf-idr-restart-06.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2003-1-30 This document proposes a mechanism for BGP that would help minimize the negative effects on routing caused by BGP restart. An End-of-RIB marker is specified and can be used to convey routing convergence information. A new BGP capability, termed 'Graceful Restart Capability', is defined which would allow a BGP speaker to express its ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart. Finally, procedures are outlined for temporarily retaining routing information across a TCP transport reset. The mechanisms described in this document are applicable to all routers, both those with the ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart and those without (although the latter need to implement only a subset of the mechanisms described in this document). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-restart-06.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idr-restart-06.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-restart-06.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-1-30103238.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-restart-06.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-restart-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-1-30103238.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- 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 HAA18189 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E217C9125D; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:04 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id ADC6C9125F; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:04 -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 62C239125D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 46B905DE43; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:03 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38EA5DFA8 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:55:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04995; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:51:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301311251.HAA04995@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idr@merit.edu From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-08.txt Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:51:28 -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Cooperative Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4 Author(s) : Y. Rekhter et al. Filename : draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-08.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2003-1-30 This document defines a BGP-based mechanism that allows a BGP speaker to send to its BGP peer a set of route filters that the peer would use to constrain/filter its outbound routing updates to the speaker. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-08.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-08.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-08.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-1-30103229.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-08.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-1-30103229.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- 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 SAA23385 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:39:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1BF12912F2; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:36:52 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3766A912ED; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:34:28 -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 1205E912EA for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DB1575DE5D; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:34:12 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EBD5DDF3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:34:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA14261; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:31:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:31:13 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: idr@merit.edu Cc: andrewl@cw.net Subject: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.2 (Draft-19) Message-ID: <20030130153113.L25084@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Greetings, Attached is the latest copy of the issues list. We've done a lot of work since the 2.1 version came out. We've updated 22 issues, and brought 12 to consensus. We have 10 issues remaining with open discussion, and some of those are close. Andrew --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Issue_List-v2.2.txt" 2003-01-30 v2.2 This is version 2.2 of this list. All the 2.x versions pertain to draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt. The revisions discussed here are targeted to be incorporated into the -19 version of this document. Since late August 2002, there has been a push to get any and all issues with the base spec. resolved so the IDR group can move this draft forward to the IESG. This is a list of the issues that have been brought up regarding the base draft, and the current working group consensus on them. All mistakes are mine, please email me at andrewl@cw.net with corrections. Please include the number and the title of the issue in the subject lines of email discussing that issue. It will help in keeping track. N.B. There is no rhyme or reason to the numbering scheme other than unique tags to address the issues. ============================================================================ Table of Contents ============================================================================ 1) Reference to RFC 1772 2) MUST/SHOULD Capitalization 3) Fix Update Error Subcode 7 -- accidently removed. 4) Section 5.1.4 - Editoral Comment 5) Section 9.1 - Change "all peers" to "peers" 6) AS Loop Detection & Implicit Withdraws 7) Standardize FSM Timer Descriptions 8) FSM MIB enumerations 9) Make "delete routes" language consistant 10) Correct OpenSent and OpenConfirm delete wording 11) Incorrect next state when the delay open timer expires. 12) Entering OpenConfirm / Adding "Stop OpenDelay" action 13) FSM Missing Next States 13.1) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Connect State) 13.2) FSM Missing Next States - Event 14 (Connect State) 13.3) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Active State) 13.4) FSM Missing Next States - Event 13-17 (TCP Connection) 13.5) FSM Missing Next States - Event 17 (Connect State) 13.6) FSM Missing Next States - Event 18 (Open Confirm) 14) FSM - Peer Oscillation Damping 15) FSM - Consistant FSM Event Names 16) Many Editorial Comments 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? 18) MED Removal Text 19) Security Considerations 20) Peer Oscillation Damping 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) 23) Event1/Event2 Clean Up 24) Events 3, 5, 6 & 7 Give Examples 25) Event 4 & 5 Session Initiation Text 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option 27) Event 5 Clarification 28) Timer Events Definition - Make Consistant 29) Event 8 - Clean Up 30) Hold Timer - Split? 31) OpenDelay Timer Definition 32) Definition of TCP Connection Accept (Event 13) 33) Event 13 & 14 - Valid Addresses & Ports 34) Event 17 - TCP Connection Fails to TCP Connection Termination 35) Making Definition Style Consistant 36) Event 19 - Definition Cleanup 37) Event 22 - Cleanup 38) FSM Description - ConnectRetry Count 39) Handling Event 7 (Auto Stop) to Idle State processing 40) Clearing the Connection Retry Timer 41) Handling of Event 14 in the Connect State 42) Handling events 20, 21 in the Connect State and Active State 43) Handling the default events in the Connect state 44) Handling Event 23 in Connect and OpenSent 45) Event 17 in the Connect state 46) Handling of Event 17 in Active state 47) Handling of Event 19 in Active state 48) Handling of Event 2 in Active state 49) Default Event handling in Active state 50) Clearing Hold timer in OpenSent, OpenConfirm and Established State 51) Clearing Keepalive timer in OpenConfirm and Established State 52) Handling Event 18 in the OpenSent state (Keepalive Timer) 53) Established State MIB 54) State impact of not supporting Optional Events 55) New DelayOpen State ============================================================================ Issues with Consensus ============================================================================ 1) Reference to RFC 1772 2) MUST/SHOULD Capitalization 3) Fix Update Error Subcode 7 -- accidently removed. 4) Section 5.1.4 - Editoral Comment 5) Section 9.1 - Change "all peers" to "peers" 6) AS Loop Detection & Implicit Withdraws 7) Standardize FSM Timer Descriptions 8) FSM MIB enumerations 9) Make "delete routes" language consistant 10) Correct OpenSent and OpenConfirm delete wording 11) Incorrect next state when the delay open timer expires. 12) Entering OpenConfirm / Adding "Stop OpenDelay" action 13) FSM Missing Next States 13.1) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Connect State) 13.2) FSM Missing Next States - Event 14 (Connect State) 13.3) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Active State) 13.4) FSM Missing Next States - Event 13-17 (TCP Connection) 13.5) FSM Missing Next States - Event 17 (Connect State) 13.6) FSM Missing Next States - Event 18 (Open Confirm) 14) FSM - Peer Oscillation Damping 15) FSM - Consistent FSM Event Names 16) Many Editorial Comments 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? 19) Security Considerations 20) Peer Oscillation Damping 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) 23) Event1/Event2 Clean Up 25) Event 4 & 5 Session Initiation Text 27) Event 5 Clarification 28) Timer Events Definition - Make Consistant 29) Event 8 - Clean Up 30) Hold Timer - Split? 31) OpenDelay Timer Definition 32) Definition of TCP Connection Accept (Event 13) 34) Event 17 - TCP Connection Fails to TCP Connection Termination 35) Making Definition Style Consistant 36) Event 19 - Definition Cleanup 37) Event 22 - Cleanup 38) FSM Description - ConnectRetry Count 39) Handling Event 7 (Auto Stop) to Idle State processing 40) Clearing the Connection Retry Timer 43) Handling the default events in the Connect state 46) Handling of Event 17 in Active state 47) Handling of Event 19 in Active state 48) Handling of Event 2 in Active state 49) Default Event handling in Active state 50) Clearing Hold timer in OpenSent, OpenConfirm and Established State 51) Clearing Keepalive timer in OpenConfirm and Established State 53) Established State MIB 55) New DelayOpen State ============================================================================ Issues WITHOUT Consensus ============================================================================ 18) MED Removal Text 24) Events 3, 5, 6 & 7 Give Examples 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option 33) Event 13 & 14 - Valid Addresses & Ports 41) Handling of Event 14 in the Connect State 42) Handling events 20, 21 in the Connect State and Active State 44) Handling Event 23 in Connect and OpenSent 45) Event 17 in the Connect state 52) Handling Event 18 in the OpenSent state (Keepalive Timer) 54) State impact of not supporting Optional Events ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Reference to RFC 1772 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Proposed changing RFC 1772 reference, since that document should be updated. Discussion: Jeff proposed that we reconsider referencing RFC 1772, since that document should be updated. Yakov pointed out that this is a non-normative reference and can just be left as is. Jeff agreed that this wasn't a big deal. We are at consensus to leave things as they are. This was discussed in the "-18 last call comments" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) MUST/SHOULD Capitalization ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Capitalize MUST/SHOULD where appropate. Discussion: Jeff brought this up, and Yakov reponded asking that he point out specific instances where this is needed. Jeff said he would do so, given some time. Yakov later replied that this would be fixed in the -19 version. Jeff replied with a master diff showing the MUST/SHOULDs, for the entire document please see the beginning of the thread entitled: "Issues list, #2: MUST/SHOULD Capitalization" This was discussed in the "18 last call comments" thread. This was also brought up in the "proxy: comments on draft -18" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Fix Update Error Subcode 7 -- accidently removed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add error subcode 7 back in, it looks like it was inadvertently removed. Add deprication text to Open Message Error subcode 5. Discussion: Jeff supplied: Update message error subcode 7 is removed. Especially in -18, it looks like an editing mistake based on where it would fall in the editing.. Yakov mentioned that this is addressed in Appendix A. Jeff replied: What I would like to see is something like this: 6 - Invalid ORIGIN Attribute 7 - [Deprecated - See Appendix A] 8 - Invalid NEXT_HOP Attribute As it stands, 7 lies on a page boundary and looks like it got clipped by the roff. Yakov agreed, and also said he would add similar text for Open Message Error subcode 5. This was discussed in the "18 last call comments" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Section 5.1.4 - Editoral Comment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix "restricts" to "RESTRICTIONS" Discussion: Jeff proposed an editorial fix. This is agreed to. This was discussed in the "-18 last call comments" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Section 9.1 - Change "all peers" to "peers" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Section 9.1 - Change "all peers" to "peers" Discussion: Jeff proposed: 9.1: The output of the Decision Process is the set of routes that will be advertised to (delete all) peers; the selected routes will be stored in the local speaker's Adj-RIB-Out according to policy. The previous wording implied that routes in the LocRib MUST be placed in the adj-rib-out. Yakov agreed, this fix will be in the next revision. This was discussed in the "-18 last call comments" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) AS Loop Detection & Implicit Withdraws ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Update the text to reflect the AS Loop detection should be done in the BGP decision process. Discussion: John brought this up, and suggested: I have one further comment just in case it's not perfectly obvious to everyone, which is that "ignore the UPDATE" is not strictly the action you take when receiving a looped update. Rather, you treat it as an implicit withdraw, i.e. you process it as any other update but treat the contained NLRI as unfeasible. I was going to write that this is sufficiently clear from the spec, but I regret to say that it isn't. Here is the fourth paragraph of section 9: The information carried by the AS_PATH attribute is checked for AS loops. AS loop detection is done by scanning the full AS path (as specified in the AS_PATH attribute), and checking that the autonomous system number of the local system does not appear in the AS path. If the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be stored in the Adj-RIB-In, but unless the router is configured to accept routes with its own autonomous system in the AS path, the route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process. Operations of a router that is configured to accept routes with its own autonomous system number in the AS path are outside the scope of this document. I don't think this is quite right -- the decision process needs to be run if the looped routes had previously been advertised feasibly on the same session. This could be fixed by hacking the quoted paragraph, but it seems more straightforward to do it by removing the quoted paragraph and making the fix in 9.1.2 Phase 2 instead. This could be done by inserting the following between the third and fourth paragraphs of 9.1.2 Phase 2: If the AS_PATH attribute of a BGP route contains an AS loop, the BGP route should be excluded from the Phase 2 decision function. AS loop detection is done by scanning the full AS path (as specified in the AS_PATH attribute), and checking that the autonomous system number of the local system does not appear in the AS path. Operations of a router that is configured to accept routes with its own autonomous system number in the AS path are outside the scope of this document. Section 9.3, first bullet, also addresses this topic, but I don't think it's sufficient. Yakov agreed that this was a change for the better and will include this in the next revision. We are at consensus on this issue. This is discussed in the "-18 last call comments" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Standardize FSM Timer Descriptions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Standardize the state descriptions on those listed in the discussion section of this issue. Discussion: Tom proposed: I think a standard description would serve us better instead of using the following different ways (which I take all to refer to the same entity): delayBGP open timer BGP delay open timer BGP open delay timer delay open timer BGP delay timer I suggest Open Delay timer (with those capitals) I believe that the corresponding flag is consistently referred to (apart from the capitalisation) as Delay Open flag Yakov agreed with this suggestion, no one else disagreed, we are at consensus. This was discussed in the "BGP18-FSM-terminology" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) FSM MIB enumerations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Move MIB references from the base spec into the MIB document. Discussion: Tom pointed out that: The FSM makes several references to putting values into MIB objects and while some of the values are defined, eg FSM error or Hold Timer expired, I can find no definition of the following in any of the BGP documents, MIB or otherwise. connect retry expired TCP disconnect administrative down collision detect closure Call Collision cease collision detected and dump connection Administrative stop I believe an implementation needs to be told these values somewhere and that there should be a reference to that place in bgp18. Jeff replied that to make things easier, the MIB references will be removed from the base spec, and into the MIB document. This was discussed in the "WG Last Call FSM MIB enumeration" thread, and the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm MIB objects" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) Make "delete routes" language consistant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace a variety of wording with "deletes all routes associated with this connection,". Discussion: Tom pointed out that we use a variety of language to say how we are going to delete routes in the FSM. He proposed that we instead use: - deletes all routes associated with this connection, This met with agreement, and will be reflected in the next version. This was discussed in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm delete action" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) Correct OpenSent and OpenConfirm delete wording ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Remove delete wording from OpenSent and OpenConfirm states. Discussion: Venu asked why there was delete wording in the OpenSent and OpenConfirm states when a BGP speaker cannot recieve routes in these states. Jeff acknowledged that this was an error. Yakov agreed to fix the next version. This was discussed in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm delete action" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) Incorrect next state when the delay open timer expires. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix the next state. Discussion: Tom pointed out that: I believe that there is an incorrect next state when the delay open timer expires [event 12] in the Active state. The next state should be OpenSent and not OpenConfirm. OpenConfirm is for KeepAlive processing when Open messages have been sent and received. OpenSent is for Open sent and not yet received. The corresponding section in Connect state I believe is correct. Yakov agreed, and will fix this in the next revision. This was discussed in the "bgp18 WG Last CAll fsm incorrect next state" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) Entering OpenConfirm / Adding "Stop OpenDelay" action ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add this text: Change 2 - Connect state event 17 (currently defined as going to Active) event 9 (stays in Connect state) new Text: In response to the connect retry timer expires event [Event 9], the local system: - drops the TCP connection, - restarts the connect retry timer, - stops the Open Delay timer and resets the timer to zero, - initiates a TCP connection to the other BGP peer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - stays in Connect state. If the TCP connection fails [Event17], the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - stops the Open Delay timer and resets value to zero, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes its state to Active. Further discussion on Keepalives has been moved to issue 52. Discussion: This discussion began with Tom outlining these two points: When the OpenConfirm state is entered from OpenSent with the receipt of a valid open [Event 18], then a KeepAlive message is sent and the timer is started. When the OpenConfirm state is entered from Active or Connect on receipt of a valid open [Event 19], no message is sent, no timer is started. I believe this inconsistency is an error and should be corrected by adding these two actions in those two places. Sue replied: Just to clarify this comment: Event 19 = valid open with delay timer running Active = 1) awaiting TCP connection, or 2) TCP connection completed and awaiting the TCP connection with delay timer running Case 1: - should not see Event 19 In transition from Active to Open Confirm, the connection must have a TCP connection completed. Case 1 does not have this occurring, so the transition must be avoided. Case 2: - should see Event 19 - Open, Keepalive should be sent. Previous text: (Action H from FSM document) If an Open is received with the BGP Delay Open timer running, [Event 19], the local system: - clears the connect retry timer [cleared to zero), - completes the BGP initialization, - stop and clears the BGP Open Delay timer, - Sends an Open Message, - sets the hold timer to a large value (4 minutes), and - changes its state to an Open Confirm. New text: [a New Action - N-2 : N + BGP keepalive sent] If an Open is received with the BGP Delay Open Timer running [Event 19], the local system: - clear the connect retry timer [cleared to zero], - completes the BGP initialization, - stops and clears the BGP Open Delay timer, - Send an Open message, - Sends a Keepalive message, - If hold timer value is non-zero, - set keepalive timer - hold timer reset to negotiated value else if hold timer is zero, - reset the keepalive timer, and - reset the hold timer. - If the value of the autonomous system field is the same as the local Autonomous system number, set the connection status to a internal connection; otherwise it is "external". Tom and Sue discussed the OpenDelay state, and recalled that this was excluded a number of months ago as not reflecting current practice. By way of clarification, Sue added: 1) Agree, this can occur in the Active state as well as the Connect state. Will you accept the earlier text below to be inserted both places? Background: The state machine for Event 19 is: Idle Connect Active Open Open Estb Sent Confirm =============================================== Event 19 | | | | | | | next state |Idle | Open | Open | Open |Idle | Idle | | | confirm| confirm| Confirm| | | =============================================== action | V | N-2 | N-2 | N | E-1 | E | =============================================== Per the State Machine. Action v - FSM Error Action E - FSM Error, drop connection - etc, drop routes Action E-1 - FSM Error, drop connection (lots of Action N-2 (text below) Action N (text below, without sending Open) 2) Do you think that Event 19 is possible in the Open Sent state? Please answer this separately. Tom replied that: 1) yes I think the same text in both Active and Connect states is a good resolution 2) complicated. As the fsm text stands, Event 19, along with a host of others, takes us back from Open Sent to Idle (I assume on the grounds this is an error condition) which seems very reasonable. But ...in quite a few places, such as Connect state events 2, 7,8,9,10,11, 17, 18, 20 thru 27, we do not stop the OpenDelay timer when going to Idle or Active so we could then go from eg Idle with Manual start [event 1] to Connect to Open Sent all before the OpenDelay timer expires in which case event 19 can occur validly in Open Sent - obscure but possible. (This is also true with Active state and events 2, 17 and the default list at the end). But I think this is an error, and that when exiting Connect state or Active state as listed above, we should have an additional action to stop the OpenDelay timer in which case event 19 in Open Sent becomes an error condition (again). But but but as ever, I cannot speak with authority for implementations and so if implementations do not stop the OpenDelay timer when exiting as above, then Event 19 is valid in Open Sent state - obscure but possible (again). My wish is to add the extra action, stop OpenDelay timer, for the events listed above in Active and Connect states in the expectation that that is what people have or should have implemented. Tom added a reponse to Sue after some other threads have been discussed: You asked if event 19 (Open with OpenDelay timer running) was possible in OpenSent state; I gave a lengthy reply (below) to the effect yes it could because the OpenDelay timer did not always get stopped but the timer should be stopped in which case the event would not happen. Reading your responses to Siva , I see you include stopping the Open Delay timer in the action 'release all BGP resources' when going to Idle (which I missed seeing earlier in the year). That eliminates most but not all of the possibilities I mentioned. I now believe we would need to add the action 'stop OpenDelay timer' for Connect state event 17 (currently defined as going to Active) event 9 (stays in Connect state) in order to stop event 19 in Open Sent Sue replied that, she thought this was at consensus, and provided the new text, which is: Change 1: new text Active state - event 19 If an Open is received with the Open Delay timer is running [Event 19], the local system - clears the connect retry timer (cleared to zero), - stops and clears the Open Delay timer - completes the BGP initialization, - stops and clears the Open Delay timer - sends an OPEN message, - send a Keepalive message, - if the hold timer value is non-zero, - starts the keepalive timer to initial value, - resets the hold timer to the negotiated value, else if the hold timer is zero - resets the keepalive timer (set to zero), - resets the hold timer to zero. - changes its state to OpenConfirm. If the value of the autonomous system field is the same as the local Autonomous System number, set the connection status to an internal connection; otherwise it is "external". Change 2 - Connect state event 17 (currently defined as going to Active) event 9 (stays in Connect state) new Text: In response to the connect retry timer expires event [Event 9], the local system: - drops the TCP connection, - restarts the connect retry timer, - stops the Open Delay timer and resets the timer to zero, - initiates a TCP connection to the other BGP peer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - stays in Connect state. If the TCP connection fails [Event17], the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - stops the Open Delay timer and resets value to zero, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes its state to Active. Tom replied that: Change 2, stop Open Delay timer in Connect state events 9 and 17, fine; that is what I understand to be the real issue 12. Change 1, event 19 in Active state, is IMHO issues 47 and 52. This is tangled because the initial paragraphs of Issue 12 in the issue list are nothing to to with stopping Open Delay timer and everything to to with sending a Keepalive message before entering Open Confirm state from Active or Connect state on event 19; which I raised and see as issue 52. Issue 47 was Siva's issue 28 and relates to a different action for Active state event 19. I agree with change 1 in that it adds in the sending of Keepalive which I believe essential; I think Siva needs to respond concerning issue 47. (nb the stop Open Delay action is duplicated) I wonder if we should use a different character for the bullet points under the if and else clauses to make it clear where they end ie - if the hold timer .... + do this + and this else if ... + do the other + and this But I still have an issue for Connect state event 19 where I believe, as for Active state event 19, we should send a Keepalive and start the Keepalive timer. I will pursue this as part of issue 52 if that suits you. I think the text will be the same as whatever we agree for Active state event 19. This was discussed in the "bgp 18 WG Last Call fsm missing keepalive" thread. And also in the "Event 19 in Open Sent state was Re: bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing keepalive" thread. This also came up in the "issues 12 - consensus & two changes - 2nd message" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) FSM Missing Next States ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Seven sub-issues spawned to resolve each of the next-state questions. See each sub-issue for specifics. Discussion: This began with Tom pointing out 7 places where the next state was not clear. Interlaced with his comments below is the proposed text to fix the problems and the status of the issue. All sub-issues are at consensus. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.1) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Connect State) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add next state of Connect. Discussion: Tom pointed out that: Connect State: If the TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], the local system checks the "Delay Open Flag". If the delay Open flag is set, the local system: **enters what state Sue proposed these changes: 1) Connect State - Event 15 or Event 16 [consensus, editorial] note: The delay retry timer is utilized instead of the connect retry timer for the next two changes. Previous text: If the TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], local system checks the "Delay Open Flag". If the delay open flag is set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - sets the BGP open delay timer to initial value If the Delay Open flag is not set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - clear BGP Open Delay timer (set to zero), - completes the BGP initialization, - send an Open message to its peer, - sets hold timer to a large value, and - change the state to Open Sent. New text: If the TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], local system checks the Delay Open flag prior to processing: If the Delay Open flag is set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - sets the BGP open delay timer to initial value, and - stays in the Connect state. If the Delay Open flag is not set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - clears the BGP Delay timer (sets to zero), - completes the BGP initialization, - sends an Open message to its peer, - sets the hold timer to a large value, and - changes the state to Open Sent. Tom agreed that this was good, with the change to "Open Delay timer" as discussed in issue 7. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.2) FSM Missing Next States - Event 14 (Connect State) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: We selected option 2 from discussion as the correct text: 2) treat it as an invalid response, reject the connection and see if a valid configured one comes iwthin the connect timer's window. Discussion: Tom pointed out that: Connect State: If the TCP connection receives an indication that is invalid or unconfigured. [Event 14]: **enters what state Sue proposed these alternatives: 2)Connect State - Event 14 [no consensus] Current Text: If the TCP connection receives an indication that that is invalid or unconfigured [Event 14], - the TCP connection is rejected. At the very least this section needs more "word smithing", so I'd like to change it for more clarity at least. I'm not sure this represents the implementations. What I'd like to do is query the implementations to see what they do if they receive a valid TCP connection with an invalid or unconfigured peer. Two options: Alternative 1: Count it as a valid response New Text: If a TCP connection is received that has an invalid format, or an unconfigured host [Event 14], the local system: - rejects the TCP connection, - increments the connect retry counter, - performs bgp peer oscillation checks. If bgp peer oscillation checks allow for a new connection, the bgp peer - restarts the Connect retry timer with configured value, and - enters the Active state. FSM table: Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Confirm Establish Event-14 ======================================================= Next state Idle | Active|Active|Open-Sent|Open-Confirm|Establish| ======================================================= action V | Y2 | L | Ignore | Ignore | Ignore | ======================================================= Alternative 2: Reject the connection and see if valid or configured one appears within the connect timer window. New Text: If a TCP connection is received that has an invalid format, or an unconfigured host [Event 14], the local system: - rejects the TCP connection, - and stays in the Connect state. FSM table: Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Confirm Establish Event-14 ======================================================= Nxt state Idle |Connect|Active|Open-Sent|Open-Confirm|Establish| ======================================================= action V | L | L | Ignore | Ignore | Ignore | ======================================================= Sue then sent out a call to implementors to let the list know what they did with their FSMs. Tom replied that he agreed that we need to wait to see what the existing implementations do. He also suggested: **tp need a then clause here 'if bgp peer oscillation damping does not allow for a new connection, then the local system ???' be added before the FSM table in option 1 of the proposed text. Sue prodded the list saying that: Should the peer: 1) Treat it as a valid response, and enters the active state to watch for a another TCP connection with a valid peer. 2) treat it as an invalid response, reject the connection and see if a valid configured one comes iwthin the connect timer's window. Without further input, I will select option 2. Curtis replied that this was fine with him. There has been no further disagreement, we are at consensus on this. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. It was also discussed in the "BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.3) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Active State) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add text listed in discussion. Discussion: Tom pointed out: Active State: A TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], the local system: process the TCP connection flags - If the BGP delay open flag is set: ** enters what state (I think this is an FSM error in TCP because it has not initiated a connection!) Sue proposed these changes: Previous text: A TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], the local system: process the TCP connection flags - If the BGP delay open flag is set: - clears the connect retry timer [through the following text: - and changes its state to Open Sent. New text: If the TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], local system checks the "Delay Open Flag" prior to processing: If the delay open flag is set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - sets the BGP open delay timer to initial value, and - stays in the Active state. If the Delay Open flag is not set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - clears the BGP Delay timer (sets to zero), - completes the BGP initialization, - sends an Open message to its peer, - sets the hold timer to a large value, and - changes the state to Open Sent. Tom agreeded with this. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.4) FSM Missing Next States - Event 13-17 (TCP Connection) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: We selected: Choice 2: Event 13 and Event 14 be optional, and Events 15 - 17 be mandatory. Discussion: Tom started this by saying that: If the local system receives a valid TCP Indication [Event 13], the local system processes the TCP connection flags. ** enters what state If the local system receives a TCP indication that is invalid for this connection [Event 14]: ** enters what state Sue proposed we move this to the "fsm missing next state - Events 13-17 and the TCP connection" thread. The response in this thread was: 4) Active State, Event 13 [no consensus] 5) Active State, Event 14 [no consensus] The problem with this state is it is difficult to exactly specify without discussing the TCP Messages that FSM document covers. I'll query if the implementors require all of events 13-17 as mandatory. Sue polled the implemtentors on the list with this query: These events are described in section 8.1.3. In our discussion in January through May of 2002, many implementers mapped their implementation onto the following TCP events list in 8.1.3. Events 13 - 17 Event 13 - TCP connection indication & valid remote peer Event 14 - TCP connection indication with invalid source or destination Event 15 - TCP connection request sent (by this peer) received an Acknowledgement [ local system sent a TCP SYN, Received a TCP SYN, ACK pair back, and Sent a TCP ACK] Event 16 - TCP connection confirmed [local system received a TCP SYN, sent a TCP SYN, ACK back, and received a TCP ACK] Event 17 - TCP connections Should we have all of these states? Which implementations support all of these Events? The full FSM text was snipped here for brevity. Sue prodded the list with: Do the implementors require Events 13 - 17 in the State machine ? Event 13 - TCP connection valid indication Event 14 - TCP connection invalid indication Event 15 - TCP connection request acknowedged Event 16 - TCP connection confirmed Event 17 - TCP connection fails Choice 1: Events 13 - 17 are mandatory Choice 2: Event 13 and Event 14 be optional, and Events 15 - 17 be mandatory. If no one objects, we will use Choice 2. Curtis said this was fine with him. There has been no further disagreement, we are at consensus on this. This was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. And continued in the "fsm missing next state - Events 13-17 and the TCP connection" thread. It was also discussed in the "BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.5) FSM Missing Next States - Event 17 (Connect State) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Closed in favor of 13.4 Discussion: If the local system receives a TCP connection failed [Event 17] (timeout or receives connection disconnect), the local system will: ** enters what state Sue replied with this: comment: In the Active state, we may already have a connection and be awaiting the Open Delay timer. The TCP disconnect or timeout could occur in this state due to the "Open Delay Timer". If the TCP Disconnect is ignored, we could have some peer oscillation. If the we wait, then the connection retry timer needs to be kept running. The text below allows this timer. The real question is what is the status of the current implementations. I agree, the Active state and the connect state should match. Old Text: If the TCP connection fails (timeout or disconnection) [Event 17], the local system: - set TCP disconnect in the MIB reason code, - restart Connect retry timer (with initial value), - release all BGP resources, - Acknowledge the Drop of the TCP connection if TCP disconnect (FIN ACK), - Increment ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, and - performs the BGP peer oscillation damping process. Applicable FSM State table: FSM table old: Event 17 current: Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Confirm Establish ========================================================= Next state Idle |Active |Idle |Active | Idle |Idle | | | | | | | ========================================================= action V | Y2 | G | Ignore| Track 2nd | Track 2nd | | | | | connection | connection| ========================================================= Alternative 1: FSM table new: Event 17 current: Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Confirm Establish ========================================================= Next state Idle |Active |Active |Active | Idle |Idle | | | | | | | ========================================================= action V | G | G | Ignore| Track 2nd | Track 2nd | | | | | connection | connection| ========================================================= G: The local system: - restarts the connect retry timer (at intial value), - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote peer, and - sets its next state to Active. New Text: (for Connect and Active state) If the TCP connection fails (timeout or disconnect) [Event 17], the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes it state to Active. Alternative 2: FSM table new: Event 17 current: Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Confirm Establish ========================================================= Next state Idle |Idle |Idle |Active | Idle |Idle | | | | | | | ========================================================= action V | Y2 | Y2 | Ignore| Track 2nd | Track 2nd | | | | | connection | connection| ========================================================= Next Text: If the location system receives a TCP connection failed [Event 17], the local system will: - increment the ConnectRetrycnt (connect retry count) by 1, - release all BGP resources associated with this connection, - perform BGP peer oscillation (if configured), and - go to Idle Y2 - is: The local system: 1) increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, 2) releases all BGP resources associated with this connection, and 3) performs the BGP peer oscillation damping process if the damping process allows for a new connection, the local system - restarts the connect retry timer (with initial value, and - goes to Idle If the damping process does not allow for a new connection, the local system - set the flags to damp the creation of a new bgp connection until a manual start occurs, and - goes to Idle. Tom agreed with the options, and stated that he prefered option 2. Sue is also happy with option 2, if no one else chimes in. After the issues list came out Tom responded to this issue, saying: I think this issue SHOULD be administratively terminated. It relates to Connect state Event 17 (TCP connection fails) and I am credited with raising it; in fact, the issue I raised was missing next state for Active state event 17 and this has now been subsumed into 13.4 (but note that 13.4 does not explicitly say Active state - I know it should because I raised that issue too). I will ensure it does not get lost from any resolution of 13.4. And Connect state event 17 does appear as part of issue 45 which Siva raised so I think that either way, 13.5 can go. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.6) FSM Missing Next States - Event 18 (Open Confirm) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: This is the text: In the Open Confirm state, a valid Open message [Event 22] is received. The BGP Peer connection is check to ee if there is a collision per section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to the call collision, the local system will drop the call by: - sending a NOTIFICATION with a CEASE, - resets the Connect timer (to zero), - releases all BGP resources (this includes stopping the Open Delay Timer and reseting it to zero), - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1 (connect retry +count), and - optionally performs a BGP peer oscilation damping processing, and - enters the Idle State. Discussion: Tom opened this with: Open Confirm State: If the Open messages is valid [Event 18], the collision detect function is processed per section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to call collision, the local system: ** enters what state Sue replied with: Here's my proposed text. Please let me know what you think. I think this is an editorial change. Old text: If the open message is valid, the collision detect function is processed per section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to call collision, the local system: - sends a Notification with a Cease - resets the Connect timer (to zero), - releases all BGP resources, - Drop the TCP connection (sends a TCP FIN), - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1 (connect retry count), and - performs an BGP peer oscillation damping process. New text: If the open message is valid, the BGP peer connection is check to detect a collision per section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to call collision, the local system: - sends a Notification with a Cease - resets the Connect timer (to zero), - releases all BGP resources, - Drop the TCP connection (sends a TCP FIN), - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1 (connect retry count), and - performs an BGP peer oscillation damping processing, and - enters the Idle State. notes: Collision detect impacts Open Sent, Open Confirm, and Established states. Tom replied: I am still struggling with; we are in OpenConfirm so we already have received an Open from the remote peer and Event 18 is a second Open from the same peer. Perhaps my struggle is that I think in terms of two (or more) FSM for a given IP address pair so the Open Collision detection will occur when the/an- other FSM receives a valid Open in states Active/Connect/Open Sent and will generate Event 22 into this FSM so Event 18 cannot occur. But yes, if Event 18 can occur in this FSM and this connection is to be dumped, then Idle state it should be as you suggest. I have slotted in [optionally] in front of the peer oscillation damping in your text because I think it should be optional:-) Sue replied: this mechanism allows a single fsm to handle both. 2 fsm and 1 fsm BGP FSM seem to exist. (I queried implementors a few times on this one. So, I just put in this change to provide the flexibility. Collision detect tends to give scrambled brains for most people.. As Dennis Ferguson said 2 years ago, that's the hardest part of the FSM. Sue then stated that she would query implementors to see what is being done. Sue prodded the list with: In the Open Confirm state, a valid Open message [Event 22] is received. The BGP Peer connection is check to ee if there is a collision per section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to the call collision, the local system will drop the call by: - sending a NOTIFICATION with a CEASE, - resets the Connect timer (to zero), - releases all BGP resources (this includes stopping the Open Delay Timer and reseting it to zero), - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1 (connect retry +count), and - optionally performs a BGP peer oscilation damping processing, and - enters the Idle State. Implementors need to verify if this text and the text for Event 22 allows all implementors to perform the necessary Call Collision actions. If no objects, we will use this text. Curtis said he had no problem with this. There has been no disagreement, we are at consensus with this. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. It was also discussed in the "BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) FSM - Peer Oscillation Damping ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change references to peer oscillation damping to consistant phrase: "[optionally] performs peer oscillation damping". Also remove old reference to "BGP Peer Restart Backoff Mechanisms". Discussion: Tom suggested we use consistant terminology to refer to peer osillation damping. He also pointed out a stale reference. Yakov agreed to fix both of these. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) FSM - Consistent FSM Event Names ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Make FSM names consistent. Specifics are in the discssion section. Discussion: Tom proposed that: The event name used in the FSM show much variation to the point sometimes where I am not clear that it is always the same event (eg where the event name is qualified by a subset of the possible causes). Assuming that it is, I propose the following changes to make the wording consistent, clear and concise for event names. ** denotes changed text using the convention /'old text'/'new text'/ 8. BGP Finite State machine Event1: Manual start Event2: Manual stop Event3: Automatic start **Event4: Manual start with passive TCP /estabishment/flag/ **Event5: Automatic start with passive TCP /establishment/flag/ Event6: Automatic start with bgp_stop_flap option set **Event7: Auto//matic/ stop Event8: Idle hold timer expires Event9: Connect retry timer expires **Event10: Hold time//r/ expires Event11: Keepalive timer expires Event12: Open Delay timer expires **Event13: TCP connection valid indication **Event14: TCP connection invalid indication **Event15: TCP connection request /sent received an ACK/acknowledged/ Event16: TCP connection confirmed Event17: TCP connection fails Event18: BGPOpen Event19: BGPOpen with *Open Delay timer running Event20: BGPHeaderErr Event21: BGPOpenMsgErr Event22: Open collision dump Event23: NotifMsgVerErr Event24: NotifMsg Event25: KeepAliveMsg Event26: UpdateMsg Event27: UpdateMsgErr 8.2.2 Finite State Machine Connect State: If the BGP port receives a ** valid TCP connection indication [Event 13], If the TCP connection receives **an invalid indication [Event 14]: If the TCP connection fails **/(timeout or disconnect)// [Event17] Active State: If the local system receives a **valid TCP //indication/ [Event 13], If the local system receives a TCP connection failed [Event 17] **/(timeout or receives connection disconnect)//, Open Sent: If a connection in Open Sent is determined to be the connection that must be closed, an **/administrative collision detect/Open collision dump/ [Event 22] is signaled to the state machine. If such an **/administrative collision detect dump [Event 22]/event/ is If a TCP **//connection valid/ indication [Event 13] or TCP **//connection/ request **//acknowledged/ [Event 15] Open Confirm State: ... or receives a TCP **/Disconnect// connection fails/ [Event 17] from the In the event of **/TCP establishment//TCP connection valid indication /[Event 13] .... the local system will **/issue a call/generate an Open/ collision dump [Event 22]. When the local system receives a **/call/open/ collision dump event [Event 22]/such an event/, the Established State: **/disconnect from the underlying TCP/TCP connection fails/ [Event17], it: ... it will process **/a Call/an Open/ Collision dump event[Event 22]. Notes: Event 4 title brought in line with text Event 5 title brought in line with text Event 7 title brought in line with text Event 13 title shortened to be closer to text, text brought in line Event 14 title shortened to be closer to text, text brought in line Event 15 title brought in line with text Event 17 text brought in line with title (text often introduces qualifying conditions that are too restrictive) Event 22 text brought in line with title Sue replied: I will accept the text you proposed for the Event names. I will update the FSM text to include your changes. We'll consider issue 15 in consensus. I've fixed the text. So we are at consensus here. This is discussed in the thread: "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm event names." It was also discussed in the "Issue 15 - Consistent FSM Event Names" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) Many Editorial Comments ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Many editorial suggestions, and what we are doing with them are listed below. Some issues have been broken out seperately where there is a longer discussion on them. Discussion: Alex began this by presenting comments from an anonymous reviewer, unless otherwise noted, responses are from Yakov: > Almost all of these are simple clarifications. > > Section 1, page 5: IGP definition - it's not clear from this > definition whether IBGP would be considered an IGP? any suggestion on how to improve the definition to clarify this issue would be appreciated. There was some further discussion on this and it was decided that people reading this document ought to know what an IGP is. > Section 3, page 7, para 4: Does RFC 1772 still represent the *planned* > use of BGP? Or the actual use? Or something different from actual > use? Perhaps we should just take out references to 1772. Further discussion seemed to indicate that this reference should stay. > Section 3, page 8, para 3 - "The hosts executing..." This paragraph > seems obsolete. I'll take it out. With regard to this, Siva asked if some route optimizaiton vendors rely on this. Since this wasn't resolved, it is discussed further in issue 17. > Section 4.1, page 11 - Length is in network byte order. all the encodings are in network byte order. This applies not just to the BGP spec, but to other protocols as well. This comment was made about a number of fields. It was later agreed that a reference would be made to this at the beginning of the document. > Section 4.2, page 12 - Hold Time - what does a value of zero indicate? if you read section 4.4 then you'll find that: If the negotiated Hold Time interval is zero, then periodic KEEPALIVE messages MUST NOT be sent. > Section 4.2, page 13 - BGP Identifier - network byte order? > "IP address" -> "IPv4 address" I'll put at the beginning a sentence saying that in the context of this document the term "IP address" means an IP Version 4 address. > Section 4.3, Page 14, para1, sentence 2 - "path attribute" -> "path > attributes" fixed. > Section 4.3,Page 17, NEXT_HOP: "IP address" -> "IPv4 address" > Specify that this is 4 octets. > Reference here to multi-protocol extensions for IPv6 nexthop? no. > RFC 2283 is unclear whether NEXT_HOP should always be included > when using multiprotocol extensions. Clarify this here? It is already clarified in 2283bis. > Section 4.3, Page 17/18 - MED and LocalPref: > "non-negative" -> "unsigned" for consistency with elsewhere. > (non-negative might imply values > 2^31 cannot be used). fixed. > Section 4.3, Page 19 - Prefix: "IP address" -> "IPv4 address" > Prefix: "enough trailing bits to" -> "the minimum number of > trailing bits needed to" fixed. > Section 4.4, Page 20: - "BGP does not use any TCP-based keep-alive > mechanism to determine if peers are reachable". Is it worth noting > that TCP may still timeout the connection even if TCP keepalives are > turned off? the text is fine as it is. > Section 4.4, Page 20: > KEEPALIVE message consists" -> "A KEEPALIVE message consists" fixed. > Section 5, Page 23: "The same attribute can not appear more than once > with the Path Attributes field...". Does this mean the same attribute > type, or the same attribute type and value? the former (the same attribute type). > Section 5.1 "The usage of each BGP path attributes .." -> attribute fixed. > Section 5.1.3 "IP address" -> "IPv4 address" > > "A BGP speaker must never advertise an address of a peer to that peer > as a NEXT_HOP, for a route that the speaker is originating." > suggest replace this text with: > "A route originated by a BGP speaker must never be advertised to a > peer using an address of that peer as NEXT_HOP" fixed. > Section 5.1.4: "A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism ... which > allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC to be removed from a route." Might want to > say that this is dangerous unless you received the route from an EBGP > peer? think we should keep the text as is. > Section 5.1.5: "If it [LOCAL_PREF] is contained in an UPDATE message > that is received from an external peer, then this attribute MUST be > ignored by the receiving speaker, except for the case of BGP > Confederations [RF3065]." > - "ignored" might be taken to mean that you don't process it for > decision, but that you propagate it to internal peers. I might > write "silently removed" or something similar. I think the text is ok as is. > Section 5.1.5, para 2. "set of AS" -> "set of ASs" fixed. > Section 6.3: wrt NEXT_HOP semantic correctness: should we check that a > NEXT_HOP is not a multicast or broadcast address? I'll add to the definition of NEXT_HOP that it is a unicast address. > Section 6.3, page 32, para 7: "peer than sent" -> "peer that sent" fixed. > Section 6.3: "if any attribute appears more than once" - does this > mean the same attribute type, or the same attribute type and value? the former. > Section 6.8 "Comparing BGP identifiers is done by treating them as > (4-octet-long) unsigned integers". Need to convert to host byte order > before comparing. fixed. > Section 6.8, item 2: "closes BGP connection" -> "closes the BGP connection" > "accepts BGP connection" -> "accepts the BGP connection". fixed. > Section 9.1.2.2: item (c): in the explanation of neighborAS(n), it is > unclear for IBGP connections how to determine "the neighbor AS from > which the other IBGP speaker learned the route". If this is really > the leftmost entry in the AS path (or the local AS if the path is > empty), the spec should explicitly say so. fixed. > Section 9.1.2.2, page 63, paragraph starting "If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC > attribute is removed before..." The first sentence is pretty nearly > incomprehensible. This topic has some more discussion surrounding what text we should use to clarify this issue. This is followed up in issue 18. > Section 9.1.2.2 (d) > "d) If at least one of the candidate routes was received from an > external peer in a neighboring autonomous system, remove from con- > sideration all routes which were received from internal peers." > For consistency with (c) and clarity, this might be reworded: > "d) If any of the candidate routes was learned via EBGP, remove > from consideration all routes which were learned by IBGP." fixed. > Section 9.1.2.2 (e) > "cost (n) is better than cost (m)" > Given the definition of cost, it might be clearer to say > "cost (n) is lower than cost (m)" fixed. > Section 9.1.2.2 (g) > "neighbor address" has not been defined. I'll replace "neighbor address" with "peer address". > Section 9.2.2.2, Page 70 (AGGREGATOR) - "All AGGREGATOR attributes of > all routes to be aggregated should be ignored." > > Perhaps "ignored" is ambiguous here, and it's not clear whether > should is a SHOULD. Suggest: > > "Any AGGREGATOR attributes from the routes to be aggregated MUST > NOT be included in the aggregated route." fixed. > Section 9.3 - shouldn't this subsection be moved to the discussion of > Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the decision process? Or at least move it > before Section 9.2. I think it is fine where it is now. > Appendix E, para 2: IP precedence has been deprecated. Delete this > paragraph, or replace with appropriate diffserv codepoint. deleted. > Security Considerations: > "BGP supports the ability to authenticate BGP messages by using BGP > authentication." > This sentence should be removed, and the Authentication Information > parameter has been deprecated. Please see the recent e-mail exchange on the Security Considerations See issue 19 for more on the Security Considerations section of the draft. These topics were discussed in the "proxy: more comments on the draft -18" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Leave the current definition of BGP Speaker, and normalize the text to use "BGP Speaker" instead of router. Discussion: This issue was spawned from the discussions in issue 16, specifically: Anonymous reviwer: > Section 3, page 8, para 3 - "The hosts executing..." This paragraph > seems obsolete. Yakov: I'll take it out. With regard to this, Siva asked if some route optimizaiton vendors rely on this. Jeff replied: To provide context, this paragraph currently reads: : The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host : could exchange routing information with routers via EGP [RFC904] or : even an interior routing protocol. That non-routing host could then : use BGP to exchange routing information with a border router in : another Autonomous System. The implications and applications of this : architecture are for further study. There are several deployed entities that could be considered to "exploit" this paragraph. Route collectors, route servers, bandwidth shapers and other optimizers. However, the original text may be showing its age a little bit. Perhaps the following might be a bit more appropriate: "The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host may exchange routing information with a BGP speaker for reasons that are outside the scope of this document." I would also propose adding to the same paragraph (but could be persuaded to drop it since it is *logically* redundant): "These non-routing hosts should exercise great care not to insert themselves into the forwarding path if they re-announce BGP routes." Yakov replied: Since operations of non-routing host are outside the scope of the document, and since the document doesn't preclude non-routing hosts to run BGP, I would prefer just to take the following paragraph out, and not to add any new text. The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host could exchange routing information with routers via EGP [RFC904] or even an interior routing protocol. That non-routing host could then use BGP to exchange routing information with a border router in another Autonomous System. The implications and applications of this architecture are for further study. Jeff replied that this was ok, and instead suggested: At the beginning of the document, we define: BGP speaker A router that implements BGP. This (potentially) restricts a speaker to being a router. Additionally, several spots in the text where we probably should say "BGP speaker", we use router. Yakov agreed to add this definition. Jeff replied that there still was a problem with this definition being too limiting. The discussion meandered off list for a couple of exchanges and these additional definitions were proposed: First Jeff proposed this: "A router that implements the BGP protocol. Non-routing hosts that also implement BGP are out of scope of this document." Then Andrew replied, that we should make sure the definition does not opt out entirely from making sure that non-routing hosts are interoperable: BGP Speaker A router that implements the BGP protocol. The internal behavior of non-routing hosts that also implement BGP are out of scope of this document. However, in their interactions with routers, non-routing hosts must behave as if they were routers. And Jeff replied: BGP Speaker A router that implements the BGP protocol. The internal behavior of non-routing hosts that also implement BGP are out of scope of this document. However, in their interactions with BGP speaking routers, non-routing hosts that implement BGP should be indistinguishable from a router on the wire. (or something like that - s/on the wire/ with whatever sounds best.) IOW, look like bgp on the wire - what you do internally is out of scope. Yakov replied, that we should keep the current definition, since it is clear that non-routing hosts are outside of the scope. Jeff responded that he is ok with that if we normalize the use of "BGP Speaker" instead of "BGP router" in the document. Yakov agreed to this, we are at consensus on this. This was discussed in the "proxy: more comments on draft -18" thread. And in the "Issues list, #17: Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete?" thread. And also, the "issue 17 - final resolution" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) MED Removal Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Select new text from the options below. Discussion: This issue is spawned from issue 16. An anonymous reviewer pointed out: > Section 9.1.2.2, page 63, paragraph starting "If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC > attribute is removed before..." The first sentence is pretty nearly > incomprehensible. Yakov replied: here is my attempt to clarify this: If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, then (prior to the removal) the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes; the attribute is then removed, and then the remaining EBGP learned routes may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute will be removed before advertising these routes to IBGP. Any further suggestions on how to improve this would be appreciated. Siva replied: How about this: % If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a % route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC % attribute may (MUST?) be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. % This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the % MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute must then % be removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and % which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with IBGP % learned routes. I think this reflects our objectives, which is: a) If MED is to be removed, compare EBGP routes based on the MED b) Then remove the MED c) Then do comparison with IBGP routes Andrew suggested: If a router is configured to remove a MUTLI_EXIT_DISC attribute from a route learned from EBGP, before readvertising it into IBGP the router MUST compare the route with other EBGP-learned routes before removing the MULTI_EXIT_DISC. Once this comparison is complete, the MED may be removed, and any remaining routes can be compared with IBGP routes to determine the best route. Yakov replied: Here is the text that will go in the next version of the draft: If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute is then removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with IBGP learned routes. Matthew responded to this with: I think this new text is ambiguous. >Here is the text that will go in the next version of the draft: > > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC > attribute MAY be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. This could be taken to mean either that the comparison may be performed, and if it's performed it must be performed only between EBGP learned routes, or that the comparison must be performed, but it may be performed only between EBGP learned routes. > This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the > MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If doing the comparison is optional, then I think that this sentence should read "If the comparsion is performed, then it MUST be perfo..." > The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute is then > removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and > which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with > IBGP learned routes. <snip> I think that it is desirable for an operator to be able to turn off MED processing entirely (including turning off all MED based comparisons), so I would suggest the following text: If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, comparison based on the received MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY be performed. If an implementation chooses to perform this comparison, then the comparison MUST be performed only among EBGP learned routes, and it MUST be performed before the removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. Curtis replied to Yakov's message: Looks good to me. I see no need to change "This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute". There is no implication that MULTI_EXIT_DISC must be removed and the first sentence clearly indicates that doing so is not required therefore no ambiguity. Adding a "If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed" to the second sentence would be redundant. This is discussed in the "proxy: more comments on draft 18" thread. And in the "issue 18" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) Security Considerations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix Security Considerations section to include manditory MD5 auth and advance security considerations draft along with the base draft. Discussion: Yakov started this discussion by proposing text which would require TCP MD5 authententication for BGP implementations. This is to bring the spec in line with an IETF requirement that authentication be available. After some discussion the plan is to advance draft-ietf-idr-bgp-vuln-00.txt as Informational along with the base BGP specification. This draft will serve as the security analysis section of the base spec. This is discussed in the "revised Security Considerations section" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) Peer Oscillation Damping ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Keep the Peer Oscillation Damping reference in the specification. Discussion: This began when Siva proposed: Since this feature is going to be added in a new draft, and its addition will change the operation of the state machine, can we remove all mention of it in the state machine ? As part of this removal, can we also remove the IdleHold Timer from the FSM since it is not useful in the absence of peer oscillation damping ? The draft that describes this procedure can then describe the change in the state machine required to do this. Sue replied that: The reason we should not remove the peer oscillation damping from the state machine: 1) Deployed implementations support peer oscillation damping 2) Hooks for the additions in the FSM cannot be added later. These hooks are optional and do not need to be implemented. Siva replied: I understand. I am not trying to object to peer oscillation damping, I think it is a good idea and we have included it in our implementation as well. I was suggesting that instead of a partial description in this draft, it be completely described in the draft on peer oscillation damping. However, I do see your point, and unless there are any objections from others, I think we have consensus on this issue. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the text in the discussion section. Discussion: This discussion began with Siva asking: Why have a Hold Timer and a Hold Time ? Can we replace this with just Hold timer ? Can we also add the following session attributes: a) DelayBgpOpenTimer b) IdleHold Timer (in case we choose not to remove this from the bas = FSM) Can we also add the following flag to the session attributes: a) DelayOpen Flag After some discussion we have this text on the table: Event8: Idle hold timer expires Definition: An Event generated when the Idle Hold Timer expires. The Idle Hold Timer is only used when the persistent peer oscillation damping function is enabled. % % Implementations not implemented persistent % peer oscillations damping functions may not % have the Idle Hold Timer. Sue replied: I will accept the new text for the following total text: Event8: Idle hold timer expires Definition: An event generated when the Idle Hold Timer expires indicating that the session has completed a back-off period to prevent bgp peer oscillation. The Idle Hold Timer is only used when the persistent peer oscillation damping function is enabled. Implementations not implementing the presistent peer oscillation damping functions may not have the Idle Hold Timer. Status: Optional We are at consensus with this. Tom added a couple of minor edits, correcting the spelling of "persistent" in the third paragraph, and pointing out that: oscillation damping functions may not have the Idle Hold ** function ** (because we only have function not functions in the previous sentence) Timer. Sue added the edits. Siva also liked the way this issue has turned out. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #2. And in the "Draft 19 - issue #21" thread, alternately the "Draft 19 - Issue 21" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the text in the discussion section to section 8.0. Discussion: This begain with Siva propsosing: Can we call these out as well: * Accept Connections from unconfigured peers (Enabled/Disabled) * Peer Oscillation Dampening (Enabled/Disabled) (In case we choose not to remove it from base spec) After some discussion we have this text on the table: The following will be added to 8.0 Optional parameters that may be supported either per connection or per implementation: 1) Delay Open flag 2) Delay Open Timer 3) Perform automatic start flag 4) Passive TCP establishment flag 5) BGP stop_peer_flag flag 6) Idle Hold timer 7) Perform automatic stop flag 8) Perform Collision detect in Establish mode flag Sue accepted these changes. Tom added this correction for item 2 in Sue's text: 2) Delay Open Timer ** Open Delay timer ** (for which we have consensus in Issue list v2 item 7) Siva asked, and Sue accepted these additional changes: 9) accept connections from un-configured peers 5) BGP stop_peer_flap flag We are at consensus on this. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #3. This was also discussed in the "BGP Draft 19 - Close open items 22" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) Event1/Event2 Clean Up ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Use "Local system administrator" in both sections. Discussion: Siva proposed that we clean up the text for these Events by selecting either "Administrator" or "Local system" but not both. Sue proposed text using "Local system administrator" that was agreed on. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) Events 3, 5, 6 & 7 Give Examples ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Do we have consensus on the new text? Discussion: This began with Siva proposing we add examples for these event states. Sue believes this is largely out-of-scope, but did agree to move the example of "automatic stop" to the event description section. She asked for proposed text for additional examples. Sue replied that she has made the following changes, and asked if these worked for Siva. New text: Event7: Automatic stop Definition: Local system automatically stops the BGP connection. An example of an automatic stop event is exceeding the number of prefixes for a given peer and the local system automatically disconnecting the peer. Status: Optional depending on local system Siva thought this for Event 7 was fine. Sue replied to the list, saying that, previously examples had caused dissention, and asked if there was a strong feeling either way. Siva proposed this text for Events 3, 5 & 6: Event 3: Examples of this event are: When a connection is terminated during exchange of Open messages due to version failure Event 5: Examples of this event are: Similar to Event 3 Event 6: Examples of this event are: Similar to Event 3 and b) When a Idle Hold timer expires (within local limit) This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #5. This was also in the "Issue 25" thread, and the "Issue 25 - this is really issue 24" threads. This is also in the "Draft 19 - Issue 24" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) Event 4 & 5 Session Initiation Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Leave the text as is. Discussion: This began with Siva wanting to change: Definition: Local system automatically starts the BGP session with the passive flag=20 enabled. The passive flag indicates=20 that the peer will listen prior to=20 establishing a connection. to: The passive flag indicates that the state machine will wait for specified peer to initiate a connection with the local system. If this does not happen within a specific time (hold time), the local system will then also attempt to initiate connection with the specified peer. Sue replied: The text in 8.2.1.1 indicates the definition of the passive flag. 6a) ========== My understanding of your text is that you want to replace in both sets of text: "The passive flag indicates the peer will listen prior to establishing a connection". with: "The passive flag indicates that the state machine will wait for the specified peer to initiate a connection with a local system. The problem with this sentence is that in the "unconfigured" case the phrase "specified" peer is confusing. I think the original text is clearer. 6b) ========== If this does not happen within a specific time (hold time), the local system will then also attempt to initiate (a) connection with the specified peer. My comments: Again, the "specified peer" term is confusing. Also, the 2nd half of the statement mixes the actions of the state machine with the events. I believe this muddies the text instead of clarifying it. Siva and Sue later agreed to leave the text the same because of the Unconfigured + passive TCP connection + Delay Open situation. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Add new event (#3) below. Does that settle things? Discussion: This began with Siva asking: Won't a variant of this with bgp_stop_flap option set be requried ? We can also achieve the same by using the bgp_stop-Flap option as a flag that is provided as an input to the state machine. Siva later clarified this to include: We already have Event 3 - Automatic Start Event 5 - Automatic start with bgp_stop_flap option set To make things consistent, shouldn't we either a) Add 3 new events : 1) Manual start with bgp_stop flap option set 2) Manual start with passive TCP establishment and bgp_stop_flap option set 3) Automatic start with passive TCP establishment and bgp_stop_flap option set or b) Remove Event 6, and rely on a flag to tell us wether peer flap damping is to be performed for the session or not. Sue said she prefered option A. And stated that #1 & #2 are infeasible, but that we need to add #3. Tom replied: But if we add an event, then we must add and agree on actions for all six existing states so I think to say that adding a new event settle things might be naive. If we do add 3) Automatic start with passive TCP establishment and bgp_stop_flap option set which I understand is Sue's resolution, then for Idle state the actions are straightforward but for the other five, is the event completely ignored? If so, does it mean that the passive flag and the bgp_stop_flap option are ignored and we carry on as if we were when we were started which may have been without them. Or is the fact of starting ignored but the flags remain set and so color the effect of other events? Needs defining. Jeff replied to this, quoting the existing draft: The start events [Event 1, 3-6] are ignored in connect state. The start events [Event1, 3-6] are ignored in the Active state. The Start events [Event1, 3-6] are ignored in the OpenSent state. Any start event [Event1, 3-6] is ignored in the OpenConfirm state. Any start event (Event 1, 3-6) is ignored in the Established state. And elaborated, saying that: "ignore" means do nothing. This means don't twiddle with the flags. :-) This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #7. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) Event 5 Clarification ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Leave the text as is. Discussion: This began when Siva asked that in event 5: Is it correct that this event will occur only when we want to restart a connection (after it had been terminated due to some reason beside administrative action) that we had accepted from an unconfigured peer ? Sue replied: The automatic start function is an implementation specific mechanism. This text does not seek to restrict it in any fashion. Siva said that although he felt his original clarification would be more useful to new implementors he is ok with the text as is. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #8. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) Timer Events Definition - Make Consistant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change text to use "generate" across the board. Discussion: Can we use similar language for Events 8-12 to make them consistant? It was agreed that we will use "generate" i.e.: Event 8: An event generated when the Idle Hold timer expires. Event 9: An event generated when the ConnectRetry timer expires. Event 10: An event generated when the Hold timer expires. Event 11: An event generated when the Keepalive timer expires Event 12: An event generated when the Delay BGP Open timer expires. This is at consensus. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread Comment #9. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) Event 8 - Clean Up ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Clean up first sentance. New text below. Discussion: Siva began this by asking if we could clean up the wording of Event 8. After some discussion with Sue we are at this change for the first sentance: An event trigerred by the expiry of the Idle Hold timer, indicating that the session has completed waiting for a back-off period to prevent bgp peer oscillation. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #10. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) Hold Timer - Split? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Keep the hold timer text as is. Discussion: Siva proposed that since: We use the hold timer for two purposes * Waiting for an open message (with a default value of 240 seconds) * Waiting for Keepalives (with a default value of 90 seconds) Can we use two different timers (or at least call them two different timer events) ? Sue replied that this is not how it is implemented currently. Siva replied that we have two conceptually different timers, but that it would certainly work to only have one, since only one needs to be running at any given time. Tom agreed that we can keep things as is. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #11. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) OpenDelay Timer Definition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes - See issue 28 Summary: This is fixed by the fixing of issue 28. Discussion: This began with Siva's request that we add something to Event 12 to specify what to do when the timer expires. This seems to have been addressed in issue 28. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #12. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) Definition of TCP Connection Accept (Event 13) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change "Definition" text as indicated below. Discussion: Siva proposed that we change text from refering to "TCP connection request" to "receiving a TCP connection". This led to this proposed text: Definition: Event indicating the reception of a TCP connection request with a valid source IP address and TCP port, and valid destination IP address and TCP Port. The definition of invalid source address and port and invalid destination address is left to the implementation. This met with agreement. This thread also discussed the idea of filtering the incomming address/port. It was decided that this was implementation dependant. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #13. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) Event 13 & 14 - Valid Addresses & Ports ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: We're at consensus for most of this, but we need to agree on the destination port portion of this. Discussion: With regard to Event 13 & 14, Siva raised questions about: 1) What does it mean to validate a port, and 2) Should we state what we consider an invalid IP addres to be? Sue replied that this is local policy and is implementation dependant. Siva agreed regarding the source port & IP address, but disagreed about the destination port. He argued that we need to know the destination port for interoperability. Sue asked Siva to provide some text. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #14. This was also in the "BGP-19: Issue 33" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34) Event 17 - TCP Connection Fails to TCP Connection Termination ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change the text to "fails." Discussion: This began with Siva observing: This event can occur even when the transport connection is closed by the other end. Since this does not reflect a 'failure ', can we change the event name to % Event17: TCP connection termination Sue replied that: Discussion: It both terminates from the remote site and can "timeout" - fail. Suggestions? I can use "disconnect", what do you think. Siva replied that this was a minor issue, and on further reflection, either "fails" or "disconnect" would be acceptable. Sue replied that she has accepted Siva's comments, and the text will be changed to "fails". This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #15. This was also discussed in the "BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35) Making Definition Style Consistant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Adpot consistant style for the definition of events. Discussion: This started with Siva asking if we could make the definition style consistant across eventsr. Sue replied to this with text for 13-17, Siva clarified that he was talking more about 18-21, and proposed text. We are agreed on the text for 13-17: Event13: TCP connection indication and valid remote peer Definition: Event indicating the local system reception of a TCP connection request with a valid source IP address and TCP port, and valid destination IP address and TCP Port. The definition of invalid source, and invalid destination IP address is left to the implementation. BGP's destination port SHOULD be port 179 as defined by IANA. TCP connection request is denoted by the local system receiving a TCP SYN. Status: Mandatory (Optional) Event14: RCV TCP connection indication with invalid source or destination Definition: Event indicating the local system reception of a TCP connection request with either an invalid source address or port number or an invalid destination address or port number. BGP destination port number SHOULD be 179 as defined by IANA. Again, a TCP connection request denoted by local system receiving a TCP SYN. Status: Mandatory (Optional) Event15: TCP connection request sent received an ACK. Definition: Event indicating the Local system's request to establish a TCP connection to the remote peer. The local system's TCP session sent a TCP SYN, and received a TCP SYN, ACK pair of messages, and Sent a TCP ACK. Status: Mandatory Event16: TCP connection confirmed Definition: Event indicates that the local system receiving a confirmation that the TCP connection has been established by the remote site. The remote peer's TCP engine sent a TCP SYN. The local peer's TCP engine sent a SYN, ACK pair, and now has received a final ACK. Status: Mandatory Event17: TCP connection fails Definition: Event indicates that the local system has received a TCP connection failure notice. The remote BGP peer's TCP machine could have sent a FIN. The local peer would respond with a FIN-ACK. Another alternative is that the local peer indicated a timeout in the TCP session and downed the connection. Status: Mandatory Siva proposed these changes for 18-21: > Event18: BGPOpen > > Definition: An event indicating that a valid Open > message has been received. with % Event18: BGPOpen % % Definition: An event is generated when a valid Open % message has been received. > Event19: BGPOpen with BGP Delay Open Timer running > > Definition: An event indicating that a valid Open > message has been successful > established for a peer that is > currently delaying the sending of an > BGP Open message. with % Event19: BGPOpen with BGP Open Delay Timer running % % Definition: An event is generated when a valid Open % message has been received for a peer that % is currently delaying the sending of a % BGP Open message. Editorial Note: "Delay Open Timer" replaced with "Open Delay Timer" per issue 7. > Event20: BGPHeaderErr > > Definition: BGP message header is not valid. with % Event20: BGPHeaderErr % % Definition: An event is generated when a received BGP % message header is not valid. > Event21: BGPOpenMsgErr > > Definition: An BGP Open message has been received > with errors. with % Event21: BGPOpenMsgErr % % Definition: An event is generated when BGP Open message % with errors has been received. Sue replied that she accepted Siva's comments, so we are at consensus here. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #16. This also came up in the "BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36) Event 19 - Definition Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace definition for Event 19 with the text in the discussion. Discussion: Siva propsosed we replace: > Definition: An event indicating that a valid Open=20 > Message has been successful=20 > established for a peer that is=20 > currently delaying the sending of an=20 > BGP Open message.=20 with: % Definition: An event indicating that a valid OPEN % Message has been received for a peer % that has a successfully established % transport connection and is currently % delaying the seending of a BGP open % message in Event 19. Sue agreed to the changes. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #17. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37) Event 22 - Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace Event 22 definition with the text from the discussion. Discussion: Siva began with observing: > Event22: Open collision discard > > Definition: An event generated administratively=20 > when a connection Collision has been=20 > detected while processing an incoming =20 > Open message. This connection has been=20 Isn't this event 'automatically' generated, since it is a system generated event ?=20 Sue replied that: response: How this generated is implementation specific. The "administratively" is to cover policy. Siva also proposed an editorial fix with: > Event 22 is an administrative could=20 > occur if FSM is implemented as two=20 > The word event is missing. How about % Event 22 is an automatic event that % could occur if FSM is implemented as two=20 Sue replied with this rewritten text: Event22: Open collision dump Definition: An event generated administratively when a connection collision has been detected while processing an incoming OPEN message and this connection has been selected to disconnected. See Section 6.8 for more information on collision detection. Event22 is an administrative based only implementation specific policy. This Event may occur if the FSM is implemented as two linked state machines. Sive agreed with this new text. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #18. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38) FSM Description - ConnectRetry Count ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Leave the counter text alone, since it is used in peer oscillation and will be in the MIB. Discussion: Siva opened with this question: The Connect Retry count is updated by the FSM but never used. In the absence of peer oscillation damping, will this be used to stop connection establishment attempts after a certain maximum number ? <Sue> Yes, this is either implementation specific or is it based on the peer oscillation damping draft. </Sue> Can we include the use of this counter in some place ? <Sue> Connect retry counter 1) Will be utilized by the peer oscillation damping drat. 2) Will be included in bgp-4-mibv2-xx. I just check and I didn't find it. Do you still want text in the main? </Sue> To which Siva replied that he believes we can leave the main text alone. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #19. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39) Handling Event 7 (Auto Stop) to Idle State processing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix the text as indicated in the discussion. Discussion: Siva began with: The handling of Event 7 is missing from the Idle State processing. Can we add this ? How about replacing > An manual stop event (Event2) is ignored in the Idle state. with % Manual stop (Event 2) and Auto stop (Event 7) events are ignored % in the Idle state Sue replied that she would add the text. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #20. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40) Clearing the Connection Retry Timer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Leave things alone, since it is better to be redundant than to let something slip through. Discussion: Siva opend with the observation: There are a few sections where the FSM draft states that the Connection Retry timer needs to be reset, wheras the conenct retry timer had been cleared prior to entering that state. We can remove these instructions to clear the connect retry timer. List of places where the connect retry timer need not be cleared a) Handling of Event 19 in the Connect State b) Handling of Events 12 in the Active State c) All cases where it is refered to in the OpenSent, OpenConfirm and Established states Sue replied: Comment: 1) Does it hurt to have the connect retry timer cleared at these points, since it has already been cleared. I felt it eased the implementations to allow the action routines to be shared across as many states as possible. You can see this a bit more actively. Tom replied to this: I propose we leave it in and close this issue. 1) To take out an action as redundant you need to be supremely confident that it really cannot make a difference. I am not (supremely confident); rather, the more I look at the FSM, the more places I find where actions are missing, as I have posted to the list, from obscure yet possible sequences of events and timing. And there is an outstanding issue of mine which flagged seven places where the next state was missing and so I think it impossible for any one to be confident that any particular action is redundant until that is cleared up and that is proving complex in some cases. So, play safe, keep them in. 2) The argument for removing them is that the number of possible distinct action lists is increased. True - it will mean that an implementor will have to code more code when first implementing BGP. For me this is no contest; keeping it safe at the possible cost of redundancy outweighs the one-off cost of additional implementation. So keep the actions in and close the issue. Jeff replied that he agreed with Tom on this. Siva concurred, that this approach was acceptable. Unless someone objects, this issue is at consensus. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #21. This is also discussed in the "BGP-draft-19: Issue 40 Clear Connect retry timer" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41) Handling of Event 14 in the Connect State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Is this really part of Issue 13.4? Discussion: Siva opened the discussion with: > If the transport connection receives an indication > that is invalid or unconfigured. [Event 14]: > - the TCP connection is rejected. I don't understand how we would get this event while in this state. Sue replied: See my earlier comments (1-10) on the connection state. It happens in implementations which track the TCP state more closely. I suggest that Event 14 become optional. Sue also suggested we fold this into the discussion about events 13-17, which is tracked in issue 13.4. Sue proposed: My resolution: Let event 14 be optional. Not all BGP implementations support it. And asked if this let us reach consensus on this issue. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #22. This was also brought up in the "BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42) Handling events 20, 21 in the Connect State and Active State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Modify section 4.2 to avoid precluding sending NOTIFICATIONs in early states (text is in the discussion). Still need to clarify the FSM behavior. Is Tom's proposed text acceptable? Discussion: Siva began this with: We need to consider the case where we receive events 20 (message header error) and 21 (Open message error) when the delay timer is running. Since the connection has been established at this point, we need to send a Notification message and then terminate the connection. To which Sue replied: Alternative comments: 1) We have not sent an Open statement. 2) Why do we have to send an Notification? I see no justification for it. Suggestion: Do you have implementations that send notification? Do you know of others that don't. Jeff saw this as indicative of an issue with section 4.2 the way it is currently written: >From section 4.2 of -18: : 4.2 OPEN Message Format : : After a TCP is established, the first message sent by each side is an : OPEN message. If the OPEN message is acceptable, a KEEPALIVE message : confirming the OPEN is sent back. Once the OPEN is confirmed, UPDATE, : KEEPALIVE, and NOTIFICATION messages may be exchanged. This text implies that NOTIFICATIONs can only be sent once we have sent an open and then a keepalive, generally meaning we're in the Established state. Anyone suggestions for modifying the wording? Section 6.1 (Message header error) is one situation that implies that a NOTIFICATION can be sent without sending even an OPEN message. Note that since the base FSM implies that we send an OPEN message immediately when we have a completed trasnport connection, we SHOULD be in at least OpenSent. However, the DelayOpen timer means that we MAY send a NOTIFICATION when we are in the Connect state. GateD, at least, will not send a NOTIFICATION without first sending an OPEN. We need to pick one: You can send NOTIFICATIONS before OPEN or before OPEN if the OpenDelay timer is running. However, we MUST fix the text above. Tom opined: A NOTIFICATION without a preceding OPEN is rather hard to interpret; it is the OPEN that gives the recipient what it needs to know about its potential peer (Version, AS number, ID, options etc) so it makes sense to send an OPEN even if it is followed by a NOTIFICATION to say goodbye :-( as opposed to a KEEPALIVE which says hello:-). But as ever, what is implemented? Yakov suggested these modifications to the text to resolve this: 1. Delete the last sentence in the above paragraph or 2. Delete "and NOTIFICATION" in the last sentence in the above paragraph Jeff replied that he prefered the first option, and that the second could be interpreted as NOTIFICAITONs not being legal, when, in fact, they may. So the text on the table to resolve this is: 4.2 OPEN Message Format After a TCP is established, the first message sent by each side is an OPEN message. If the OPEN message is acceptable, a KEEPALIVE message confirming the OPEN is sent back. However, this does not entirely clear up the original point about the FSM. If we reveive an error in Connect/Active, do we send a NOTIFY? Do we preface it with an OPEN, so that OPEN/NOTIFY are sent in immediete succession? Sue replied: I suggest we don't send a "NOTIFICATION" when Event 20 or Event 21 is received in Conect or Active state. Tom responded to this issue with: Issue 42 queries whether or not we can send a NOTIFICATION when we have not sucessfully exchanged OPENs. I propose we should, following the suggestions of Jeff and Yakov. As Yakov suggested, this requires the removal of the second sentence, first paragraph, of 4.2 which implies a NOTIFICATION can only be sent after a succesful exchange of OPENs. I think this fits best with the other references to the uses of NOTIFICATION in the draft. In terms of the FSM, it means that in Connect and Active states, on receipt of events 20 or 21, we should send a NOTIFICATION so that the last section starting In response to any other event............. is replaced by (and noting we have agreed to drop references to MIB actions) If the BGP message header checking or OPEN message checking detect an error (see Section 6.2) [Events 20 or 21], the local system: - sends a NOTIFICATION message with the appropriate error code, - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), - releases all BGP resources, - drops the TCP connection - increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, - [optionally] performs peer oscillation damping - and goes to the Idle state. In response to any other event (Events 7-8, 10-11,18, 22-27), the local system: - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), - releases all BGP resources, - drops the TCP connection, - increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by one, - [optionally] performs peer oscillation damping, - and goes to the Idle state (Note that this text is not quite watertight. Suppose we are in Active state, having been started with CRT running, receive an SYN (event 13), send SYN-ACK and then get a malformed message (events 20/21). We have not yet received an ACK and so should not send anything over TCP; I would expect TCP to buffer this awaiting the ACK except we then take down the TCP connection - or try to; I don't know what happens next but regard it as sufficiently obscure not to be concerned). (My other concern is greater; why do we now not send NOTIFICATIONs for other events; in Open Sent, Open Confirm or Established, we send one for the 'default event list' so what makes events 20 and 21 in Active and Connect so special? I can justify the absence of a NOTIFICATION for events 7, 8, 10, 11, 18, 22 since there is no evidence of a TCP connection to send it on; but events 23-27 in Active or Connect say we have received an erroneous message, the TCP connection is there so why not send a NOTIFICATION? Event7: Automatic stop Event8: Idle hold timer expires Event10: Hold timer expires Event11: Keepalive timer expires Event18: BGPOpen Event22: Open collision dump Event23: NotifMsgVerErr Event24: NotifMsg Event25: KeepAliveMsg Event26: UpdateMsg Event27: UpdateMsgErr This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #23. This was also brought up in the "BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48" thread, and the "Draft bgp19 - issue #42 NOTIFICATION before OPEN" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43) Handling the default events in the Connect state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Discussion: Siva opened this with: The Open Delay timer [original: BGP Delay OpenTimers) needs to be cleared if it is running. How about adding this: % - If the ConnectRetry Timer is running % - Clear the Connect Retry timer % - Otherwise % - Clear the Open Delay timer [original: BGP Delay Open Timer] Sue replied that: By the default you mean the text: In response to any other events[Events 7-8, 10-11, 18, 20-27], the local system: "resets" to me implies stops and clears. I think the text is clear than the text above. ------------ Is this the replacement text you imply above: - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), - clears the Open Delay timer [original: BGP Delay timer] (sets to zero), - increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, - [optionally] performs bgp peer oscillation damping, and - goes to Idle text: Editor's note: various incarnations of "Open Delay timer" have been replaced with "Open Delay timer". See issue 7. Sue replied that she accepted Siva's changes with these editorial changes: old text: - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero) - clears the open delay timer new text: - if the connect retry timer is running, clear the connect retry timer (set to zero). - if the open delay timer is running, clear the open delay timer (set to zero). Since the substantive changes have been accepted, unless someone objects, this issue is at consensus. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #24. This was also brought up in the "BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44) Handling Event 23 in Connect and OpenSent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Is the existing table is sufficent to describe the behavior? Is there an additional issue here? Discussion: This began with Siva saying: This is currently being handled in the default event processing section. However, we do not need to go through the peer oscillation damping process in this case. Can we change the wordings to reflect this, or move this out of peer oscillation damping processing ? Sue replied: 1) There is no default event handling process in the text, you will need to specify the text. 2) The state table below (hares-statemt-03.txt) states shows the changes ------------- Event 23 states: current Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Cnf Establish ---------------------------------------------------- next state Idle Idle Idle Idle Idle Idle ----------------------------------------------- action V D D Y Y T ============================================== V - Indicate FSM errors and ignore. D - 1) resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), 2) drops the TCP connection, 2) releases all BGP resources, 3) increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, 4) [optionally] performs the bgp peer oscillation damping, and Goes to Idle state. Y 1) resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), 2) Drops the TCP connection, 3) releases all BGP resources, 4) [optionally] In an exchange between Siva and Sue, this came up: Siva: "Default event handling" was perhaps a poor choice of words. What I meant is this Event 23 (Notify Message Version error) only indicates a version mismatch. By going through action sequence D, we will be performing peer oscillation damping. Should we perform damping, since this is not really a cause for persistent oscillation ? Also, since we have a distinct event to indicate a version error event, can include text indicating that version negotiation processing should take place upon receipt of this event ? Sue: Yes, we can change the "D" in state machine to a "y". The issue is what if Connect state occurs and there is not a TCP connection. Should an OPEN with wrong version be accepted? If the Open Delay flag is off, the connection state should not be getting an Open. The "D" action below works for "open delay flag off". The "y" action you suggest can occur if the open delay timer is on. If this is the issue, please confirm. We could say: if open delay flag is on -> y action if open delay flag is off -> D action Please let me know if this is the concern, and suggest text. Prior to this exhange, this issue was at consensus. The only thing that is firm in this exchange is changing "D" to "y". There seems to be some open discussion still, so we'll reopen it. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #25. This was also brought up in the "BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45) Event 17 in the Connect state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Are final edits to changed text acceptable? Discussion: This began with Siva asking: > If the transport connection fails (timeout or transport > disconnect) [Event17], the local system: > - changes its state to Active. If the transport connection fails when the Open Delay timer [original: BGP Open Delay timer] is running, should we still be going into the Active state ? Sue replied refering to the disussion tracked in issue 13.4. Jeff responded that: In this particular case, I think the issue is separate from the issues for events 13-17 since this isn't particular to how deep the BGP implementation meddles in the TCP implementation. If we are in the Connect state, because we have an incoming transport connection that has completed, but we have the OpenDelay timer running and the transport connection is closed, we can simply drop into Active after resetting the ConnectRetry timer and clearing the OpenDelay timer (if set/exists). In the case of an unconfigured peer, we can discard the FSM instance. Tom replied that he agreed with this. Tom then proposed this text: If the TCP connection fails[Event 17] and the Open Delay timer is running, the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - clears the Open Delay timer - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes its state to Active. If the TCP connection fails [Event17] and the Open Delay timer is not running, the local system: - drops the TCP connection, - releases all BGP resources, - sets ConnectRetryCnt (the connect retry count) to zero - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), and - goes to Idle state. to replace If the TCP connection fails (timeout or disconnect) [Event17], the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes its state to Active. Sue agreed to change the text to reflect the comments. o Jeff brought out a couple of other concerns, and Tom replied: > If the TCP connection fails [Event17] and the Open Delay > timer is not running, the local system: > - drops the TCP connection, > - releases all BGP resources, There are no resources to release while in the connect state. (Unless we're using this as shorthand for something else - I forget.) Tom: I was unsure about this action. It is present for Active state event 17 which is why I put it in, it does include sub-actions such as clear Open Delay timer (not running), clear Connect Retry timer (could be running) so I think it right to play safe and include it. Jeff: > - sets ConnectRetryCnt (the connect retry count) to zero I'm forgetting if this action is consistant with everything else. I don't have a current copy of the FSM and I don't trust -18 to be current enough. :-) This said, why do we go to zero? I could see not incrementing it and letting the normal decay process deal with it. The same would apply for the above. Tom: Again, I was unsure about this so put it in and waited for comment. I have a chart of 27 events and 6 states in which I have colored in the connect retry and peer oscillation damping actions and it looks like measles; I could not divine the underlying logic. Incrementing the connect retry count would make as much if not more sense to me. (It is zeroed for Manual Stop). But the action '[optionally] perform peer oscillation damping' is yet more erratic (eg for event 10 - Hold Timer expired - it is performed exiting Connect, Active, Established but not Open Confirm or Open Sent) so I left it out. Again, it might make more sense put it in. Sue replied to this: The connect state could have a few resources (minimum peer footprint) as the FSM goes from Idle to Connected state. While this amount of BGP resources is not as much as the final amount, it still needs to get released. 2nd - I think the connectretrycount should be removed; Thanks for catching that. Please confirm that part #1 is OK with you so we can put issue 45 into consensus state. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #26. This was also brought up in the "BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46) Handling of Event 17 in Active state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: See issue 13.4, this issue closed in favor of that one. Discussion: This began with Siva saying: We should now move into Idle state. Can we add % - Goes to Idle state Sue replied that she thought this should be bundled in with the issue tracked in 13.4. Since no one objected, this issue has been closed in favor of that one. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #27. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47) Handling of Event 19 in Active state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the new text in the discussion section. Discussion: This began with Siva suggesting: > - Set the Hold timer to a large value (4 minutes), Since OPEN messages have been exchanged, can we change this to % - If the negotiated Hold time is not 0, set the Hold time to % - the negotiated value Sue replied that: The text in Active and Open Sent needs to be the same. The text in Open Sent is: - sets the Hold timer according to the negotiated value (see section 4.2), and Which text do you prefer? Sue replied that this text would be added to the next draft: New text - if the hold timer value is non-zero, - starts the keepalive timer to initial value, - resets the hold timer to the negotiated value, - else if the hold timer is zero - resets the keepalive timer (set to zero), - resets the hold timer to zero. This seems to address Siva's concerns, this issue is at consensus, if there are objections, we can reopen it. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #28. This was also brought up in the "BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48) Handling of Event 2 in Active state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Update the draft with the text at the end of the discussion section. Discussion: Siva opened with: > A manual stop event[Event2], the local system: > - Sends a notification with a Cease, > - drops the Transport connection These two actions are possible only if a transport connection had already been established. How about changing the text to % - If a transport connection had been successfully established % - Send a Notification with a Cease % - Drop the Transport Connection Sue counter suggested: A manual stop event [Event 2], the local system - Drop the TCP connection, - Release all BGP resources, - resets the connection retry timer [sets to zero], - goes to Idle. Jeff replied: I'm rather confused. Under exactly what circumstances can we be in the Active state and have an active TCP connection at all? Ditto for having any BGP resources? Going to Idle is fine. Tom offered this example: eg start with passive flag, TCP SYN received, SYN-ACK sent, ACK received, Delay Open flag set and there we are. Most events are now possible either from a well-implemented remote peer or a badly implemented remote peer. Sue asked if there were any additional comments, if not, the text will be: A manual stop event[Event2], the local system: - Sends a NOTIFICATION with a Cease, - releases all BGP resources including - stopping the OPen delay timer - drops the TCP connection, - sets ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) to zero - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), - changes its state to Idle. There have been no additional comments, we will use the text Sue proposed. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #29. This was also brought up in the "BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49) Default Event handling in Active state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No routes in active. Discussion: Siva began with: To ensure consistencey with E2 handling, can we add % - If any BGP Routes exist, delete the routes Sue replied: Comment: Yakov and Jeff noted, there are no routes in Active state. Since there were no responses disagreeing, we'll consider this closed unless someone wants to open it back up. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #30. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50) Clearing Hold timer in OpenSent, OpenConfirm and Established State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: This issue is addressed in the "Clear BGP resources" Discussion: This began with Siva stating: In all event handling where we go to Idle state, we need to clear the Hold Timer as well. Sue replied that: issue resolve one way last Jan - March Clearing of keep alive timer included in Clear BGP resources No response to this yet, but since this seems to be resolved it is at consensus unless someone objects. This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #31. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51) Clearing Keepalive timer in OpenConfirm and Established State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: This issue is addressed in the "Clear BGP resources" Discussion: This began with Siva stating: In all event handling where we go to Idle state, we need to clear the Keepalive Timer as well. Sue replied that: issue resolve one way last Jan - March Clearing of keep alive timer included in Clear BGP resources No response to this yet, but since this seems to be resolved it is at consensus unless someone objects. This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #32. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52) Handling Event 18 in the OpenSent state (Keepalive Timer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: At what point do we start the Keepalive timer. Discussion: This began with Siva asking: Why do we start the Keepalive timer at this stage ? Isn't it sufficient to do so when we move into Established state ? Sue replied: An earlier comment from Tom (and you) requested the following: <---Open [Open sent state] Open--> [Event 18] <---Open <---Keepalive [Action from Event 18 in Open Sent] [Open Confirm] Keepalive -> [Event 25] [established] What do implementations do? We'll have to query implementations. Jeff added: I'm assuming the second OPEN going from right to left is a typo. If it isn't, thats a FSM error to the peer on the left. Theoretically, an implementation that utilizes its keepalive timer to send the first keepalive to transition to Established is still interoperable. However: o Keepalives can be disabled by negotiating hold time of zero o We really shouldn't need to restart the Keepalive timer. If there is a delay in the keepalive that transitions from OpenConfirm to Established, its due to the transport connection. It should be reliable and it *should* get through. If it doesn't, there's other problems and the hold timer for the peer on the right should do the Right Thing and drop the connection. > What do implementations do? We'll have to query implementations. GateD at least waits to enter the Established state prior to starting the KeepAlive timer. Tom also added: My comment was that if we do not send a KeepAlive (and start the KeepAlive timer), on exiting from Active with Event 19 to OpenConfirm then we never will and the connection will die. Open Confirm state means valid Open received so we must send a KeepAlive to acknowledge the Open (as pointed out in Jeff's other posting) and we never do it in OpenConfirm state itself (unless the KeepAlive timer expires which it cannot because we have not started it). So for me, OpenSent state Event 18 was and is correct, sending the KeepAlive without which the connection goes no further and Active state Event 19 needs to be brought into line. To say that the timer is started when entering Established state is fine except for a slight problem; we have no way in this FSM of defining actions that are taken on entering a state, only actions to be taken on leaving another state so that is why the KeepAlive actions need to be where they are (or are not in the case of Active state Event 19). Sue replied, asking more implementors to chime in on what they do for this part of the FSM. Curits replied that we should: Make it optional. Timing out in open or open-sent has never been much of an issue, so whether one or three keepalive get sent shouldn't be a hot topic. Sue said that this was fine, and she would work on text specifying optional. Jeff replied regarding GateD's behavior: GateD will start its keepalive timer while in this state, so multiple keepalives will be sent. As someone previously said, this is a "yawn" issue. But to choose one way or the other, we may potentially make someone in non-compliance. >From the closure of issue 12, we have this text, which discusses Keepalives to consider in relation to the other keepalive issue here: Change 1: new text Active state - event 19 If an Open is received with the Open Delay timer is running [Event 19], the local system - clears the connect retry timer (cleared to zero), - stops and clears the Open Delay timer - completes the BGP initialization, - stops and clears the Open Delay timer - sends an OPEN message, - send a Keepalive message, - if the hold timer value is non-zero, - starts the keepalive timer to initial value, - resets the hold timer to the negotiated value, else if the hold timer is zero - resets the keepalive timer (set to zero), - resets the hold timer to zero. - changes its state to OpenConfirm. If the value of the autonomous system field is the same as the local Autonomous System number, set the connection status to an internal connection; otherwise it is "external". This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #33. And in the "BGP-draft-19: Issue 52 - Event 18 in OpenSent State (Keepalive timer set)" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53) Established State MIB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: MIB references pulled in favor of having them in the MIB document. See issue 8. Discussion: This began with Siva asking: Some event handling in the Established state do not set the MIB Reason when handling an event that causes an error. Can we add this ? Sue replied that we have pulled the MIB wording from the FSM. See issue 8. This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #34. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54) State impact of not supporting Optional Events ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Should we develop the text? If so we need text. Discussion: Siva stated that: For the events whose status is optional, can we state the impact of not supporting them (in terms of any interoperability issues). I understand that most of the optional events will not have such an impact; but a clarification statement for the optional events would benefit new implementors. Sue responded: Much of the support of optional parameters depends on policy. I could put a short note about the optional events and parameters as part of 8.1.5 or 8.2.1.3 I think it fits better in 8.1.5. Optional: Events: 3-8, 12, 13-14[my suggestion] 19, 22 Timers: Idle Hold Timer Open Delay Timer Required flags for optional parameters: Open Delay Flag BGP Stop Flap Sue said she would try to work up more if it is agreed that this is on the right track. This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #35. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55) New DelayOpen State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: We've chosen not to reopen the debate about adding a DelayOpen State to the FSM. Discussion: Siva began with asking: Is delaying the sending of an OPEN message a standrad industry practice ? Also, in the FSM, this has been handled by practically implementing a sub-state each, within the CONNECT and ACTIVE states. Won't the FSM look more simple if we just had a new DelayOpen state that we could move into ? Sue responded that this was something we have tried to do before, but that it spawned some degree of rabid response on both sides. Given our current mandate to stick with what is implemented, it is probably best not to reopen this debate. Unless someone badly wants to reopen this debate, the issue is at Consenus. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #22. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #26. This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #36. --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Changelog-v2.txt" CHANGELOG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v2.1 to v2.2 2003-01-30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 12) Entering OpenConfirm / Adding "Stop OpenDelay" action 13) FSM Missing Next States 13.2) FSM Missing Next States - Event 14 (Connect State) 13.4) FSM Missing Next States - Event 13-17 (TCP Connection) 13.6) FSM Missing Next States - Event 18 (Open Confirm) 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? 18) MED Removal Text 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) 24) Events 3, 5, 6 & 7 Give Examples 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option 34) Event 17 - TCP Connection Fails to TCP Connection Termination 35) Making Definition Style Consistant 40) Clearing the Connection Retry Timer 41) Handling of Event 14 in the Connect State 42) Handling events 20, 21 in the Connect State and Active State 43) Handling the default events in the Connect state 44) Handling Event 23 in Connect and OpenSent 45) Event 17 in the Connect state 47) Handling of Event 19 in Active state 48) Handling of Event 2 in Active state 52) Handling Event 18 in the OpenSent state (Keepalive Timer) Moved to Consensus: 12) Entering OpenConfirm / Adding "Stop OpenDelay" action 13) FSM Missing Next States 13.2) FSM Missing Next States - Event 14 (Connect State) 13.4) FSM Missing Next States - Event 13-17 (TCP Connection) 13.6) FSM Missing Next States - Event 18 (Open Confirm) 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? 34) Event 17 - TCP Connection Fails to TCP Connection Termination 35) Making Definition Style Consistant 40) Clearing the Connection Retry Timer 43) Handling the default events in the Connect state 47) Handling of Event 19 in Active state 48) Handling of Event 2 in Active state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v2.0 to v2.1 2003-01-20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 2) MUST/SHOULD Capitalization 13.2) FSM Missing Next States - Event 14 (Connect State) 13.4) FSM Missing Next States - Event 13-17 (TCP Connection) 13.5) FSM Missing Next States - Event 17 (Connect State) 13.6) FSM Missing Next States - Event 18 (Open Confirm) 15) FSM - Consistent FSM Event Names 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) 24) Events 3, 5, 6 & 7 Give Examples 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option 33) Event 13 & 14 - Valid Addresses & Ports 45) Event 17 in the Connect state Moved to Consensus: 13.5) FSM Missing Next States - Event 17 (Connect State) 15) FSM - Consistent FSM Event Names 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF-- 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 SAA22472 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 872A9912D7; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:07:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 527F3912E3; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:07:16 -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 388C1912D7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:07:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1B4125DE2C; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:07:15 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F9D5DDA6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:07:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA13930; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:04:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:04:04 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> Cc: andrewl@cw.net, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Siva's responses Message-ID: <20030130150404.K25084@demiurge.exodus.net> References: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4E965349@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4E965349@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com>; from shares@nexthop.com on Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 05:46:13PM -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue, A new issues list is comming out this afternoon. You open issues geneally match. We also have: 24) Events 3, 5, 6 & 7 Give Examples ---> Do we add the examples Siva suggested for 3, 4, & 6? 33) Event 13 & 14 - Valid Addresses & Ports ---> We are still disagreeing on destination port definition. Siva was to provide some suggested text. 41) Handling of Event 14 in the Connect State ---> Is this really part of 13.4? (Which is resolved), should event 14 be optional? Andrew On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 05:46:13PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote: > Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 > Subject: RE: Siva's responses > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:46:13 -0500 > X-MS-Has-Attach: > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: > Thread-Topic: Siva's responses > Thread-Index: AcLGUr0R6YidyDJcS/GHAAEVOjB1dQBY/D8Q > From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> > To: <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> > Cc: <andrewl@cw.net>, <idr@merit.edu> > X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 > Precedence: bulk > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 > tests=AWL,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02 > version=2.43 > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2003 22:47:11.0277 (UTC) FILETIME=[869985D0:01C2C8B1] > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by xix-w.bengi.exodus.net id h0UMTMZ03682 > > Andrew: > > you should have a copy of all Siva's responses. > My understanding of open issues from Siva, Jeff and > Tom are: > > 18) MED Removal Text > --> Awaiting mrr response > > 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option > ---> awaiting siva comments on the 7b event > (Siva - let me know if I missed something) > > 42) Handling events 20, 21 in the Connect State and Active State > --- Siva - I need some help on this one. > Can you send me more details? > > 44) Handling Event 23 in Connect and OpenSent > --> Siva, Jeff and Tom need to comment > > 45) Event 17 in the Connect state > --> Jeff asked questions (re-opened 45), need to response > > 52) Handling Event 18 in the OpenSent state (Keepalive Timer) > --> Sue needs to propose text, but consensus is reached. > Sue will sent out text. > > 54) State impact of not supporting Optional Events > ---> no response from Siva or the list, no change. > Last chance for consensus. > > Sue > > ============== > 42- > > > Event 20 or Event 21 is received in Connect or Active state. > > My view is: > > 1) This is inconsistent with the way Header errors and errors in OPEN > messages are handled when the delay open timer is not running since, we do > send an NOTIFICATION when such events occur when we are in the OpenSent > state > 2) There is no means for the other end to know the cause for our > terminating the connection. Also, if we find a version number error or find > the security information unacceptable (in the future, perhaps!), the other > end should know about this. As things stand, due to a local flag, namely > delay open, the remote side will miss valid information. > > If sending out a NOTIFICATION without sending out an OPEN message is > unacceptable, I would rather send out a OPEN message and an NOTIFICATION > message when this event occurs. > > Sivanand > (siva@ctd.hcltech.com) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net > [mailto:andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net] > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:21 PM > To: Susan Hares > Cc: andrewl@cw.net > Subject: Siva's responses > > > Hi Sue, > > Has Siva gotten back to you on with his responses? I'm looking to get another > version of the issues list out, and I'd like to make sure it is as up-to-date > as possible. > > Thanks! > > Andrew 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 RAA21850 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:47:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4F6B29127F; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:46:40 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B5986912D7; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:46:39 -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 C9DA59127F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:46:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D8EA95DE1D; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:46:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4155F5DDF3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:46:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0UMkOS37102 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:46:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0UMkDC37073 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:46:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: Siva's responses Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:46:13 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4E965349@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Siva's responses Thread-Index: AcLGUr0R6YidyDJcS/GHAAEVOjB1dQBY/D8Q From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> Cc: <andrewl@cw.net>, <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id RAA21850 Andrew: you should have a copy of all Siva's responses. My understanding of open issues from Siva, Jeff and Tom are: 18) MED Removal Text --> Awaiting mrr response 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option ---> awaiting siva comments on the 7b event (Siva - let me know if I missed something) 42) Handling events 20, 21 in the Connect State and Active State --- Siva - I need some help on this one. Can you send me more details? 44) Handling Event 23 in Connect and OpenSent --> Siva, Jeff and Tom need to comment 45) Event 17 in the Connect state --> Jeff asked questions (re-opened 45), need to response 52) Handling Event 18 in the OpenSent state (Keepalive Timer) --> Sue needs to propose text, but consensus is reached. Sue will sent out text. 54) State impact of not supporting Optional Events ---> no response from Siva or the list, no change. Last chance for consensus. Sue ============== 42- > Event 20 or Event 21 is received in Connect or Active state. My view is: 1) This is inconsistent with the way Header errors and errors in OPEN messages are handled when the delay open timer is not running since, we do send an NOTIFICATION when such events occur when we are in the OpenSent state 2) There is no means for the other end to know the cause for our terminating the connection. Also, if we find a version number error or find the security information unacceptable (in the future, perhaps!), the other end should know about this. As things stand, due to a local flag, namely delay open, the remote side will miss valid information. If sending out a NOTIFICATION without sending out an OPEN message is unacceptable, I would rather send out a OPEN message and an NOTIFICATION message when this event occurs. Sivanand (siva@ctd.hcltech.com) -----Original Message----- From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net [mailto:andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:21 PM To: Susan Hares Cc: andrewl@cw.net Subject: Siva's responses Hi Sue, Has Siva gotten back to you on with his responses? I'm looking to get another version of the issues list out, and I'd like to make sure it is as up-to-date as possible. Thanks! Andrew 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 QAA20042 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:52:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6C9A8912D0; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:49:39 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E3242912D7; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:48:02 -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 E47269124C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CA3545DDF3; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:47:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6975DDA6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA12963; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:43:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:43:56 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Cc: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu, yakov@juniper.net Subject: Re: issues 12 - consensus & two changes - 2nd message Message-ID: <20030130134356.J25084@demiurge.exodus.net> References: <006001c2c8a4$5b8db300$0301a8c0@tom3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <006001c2c8a4$5b8db300$0301a8c0@tom3>; from nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com on Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:12:13PM -0000 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Ok, does anyone object, if we move Issue 12 to consensus, with the text that Sue spelled out in Change 2, as its resolution? I'll then move the Keepalive discussion, and the text in Change 1 to issue 52. Andrew On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:12:13PM -0000, Tom Petch wrote: > Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu > Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > To: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com>, <idr@merit.edu> > Cc: <yakov@juniper.net> > Subject: Re: issues 12 - consensus & two changes - 2nd message > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:12:13 -0000 > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 > Precedence: bulk > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 > tests=AWL,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT_OE > version=2.43 > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2003 21:14:54.0402 (UTC) FILETIME=[A25D7220:01C2C8A4] > > Sue > > Change 2, stop Open Delay timer in Connect state events 9 and 17, > fine; that is what I understand to be the real issue 12. > > Change 1, event 19 in Active state, is IMHO issues 47 and 52. This is > tangled because the initial paragraphs of Issue 12 in the issue list > are nothing to to with stopping Open Delay timer and everything to to > with sending a Keepalive message before entering Open Confirm state > from Active or Connect state on event 19; which I raised and see as > issue 52. Issue 47 was Siva's issue 28 and relates to a different > action for Active state event 19. > > I agree with change 1 in that it adds in the sending of Keepalive > which I believe essential; I think Siva needs to respond concerning > issue 47. (nb the stop Open Delay action is duplicated) I wonder if > we should use a different character for the bullet points under the if > and else clauses to make it clear where they end ie > - if the hold timer .... > + do this > + and this > else if ... > + do the other > + and this > > But I still have an issue for Connect state event 19 where I believe, > as for Active state event 19, we should send a Keepalive and start the > Keepalive timer. I will pursue this as part of issue 52 if that suits > you. I think the text will be the same as whatever we agree for > Active state event 19. > > Tom Petch > nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> > To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>; idr@merit.edu > <idr@merit.edu> > Cc: yakov@juniper.net <yakov@juniper.net> > Date: 30 January 2003 10:39 > Subject: issues 12 - consensus & two changes - 2nd message > > > Tom and idr: > > I believe issues 12 is in consensus. Please > ack the new text below. > > Sue > ================== > Change 1: new text > > Active state - event 19 > > If an Open is received with the Open Delay timer is > running [Event 19], the local system > - clears the connect retry timer (cleared to zero), > - stops and clears the Open Delay timer > - completes the BGP initialization, > - stops and clears the Open Delay timer > - sends an OPEN message, > - send a Keepalive message, > - if the hold timer value is non-zero, > - starts the keepalive timer to initial value, > - resets the hold timer to the negotiated value, > else if the hold timer is zero > - resets the keepalive timer (set to zero), > - resets the hold timer to zero. > > - changes its state to OpenConfirm. > > If the value of the autonomous system field is the same as the > local > Autonomous System number, set the connection status to an internal > connection; otherwise it is "external". > > Change 2 - > Connect state > event 17 (currently defined as going to Active) > event 9 (stays in Connect state) > > new Text: > > In response to the connect retry timer expires event [Event > 9], the local system: > - drops the TCP connection, > - restarts the connect retry timer, > - stops the Open Delay timer and resets the timer to zero, > - initiates a TCP connection to the other BGP peer, > - continues to listen for a connection that may be > initiated by the remote BGP peer, and > - stays in Connect state. > > > If the TCP connection fails [Event17], the local system: > - restarts the connect retry timer, > - stops the Open Delay timer and resets value to zero, > - continues to listen for a connection that may be > initiated by the remote BGP peer, and > - changes its state to Active. > > Sue Hares 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 QAA18997 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:15:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B557D912C4; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:14:38 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 88C68912CD; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:14:38 -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 69530912C4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4B5EA5DE1D; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:14:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net (shockwave.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39F65DE03 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:14:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from tom3 (usercb54.uk.uudial.com [62.188.150.221]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A6A5C160010D8; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:14:33 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <006001c2c8a4$5b8db300$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com>, <idr@merit.edu> Cc: <yakov@juniper.net> Subject: Re: issues 12 - consensus & two changes - 2nd message Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:12:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue Change 2, stop Open Delay timer in Connect state events 9 and 17, fine; that is what I understand to be the real issue 12. Change 1, event 19 in Active state, is IMHO issues 47 and 52. This is tangled because the initial paragraphs of Issue 12 in the issue list are nothing to to with stopping Open Delay timer and everything to to with sending a Keepalive message before entering Open Confirm state from Active or Connect state on event 19; which I raised and see as issue 52. Issue 47 was Siva's issue 28 and relates to a different action for Active state event 19. I agree with change 1 in that it adds in the sending of Keepalive which I believe essential; I think Siva needs to respond concerning issue 47. (nb the stop Open Delay action is duplicated) I wonder if we should use a different character for the bullet points under the if and else clauses to make it clear where they end ie - if the hold timer .... + do this + and this else if ... + do the other + and this But I still have an issue for Connect state event 19 where I believe, as for Active state event 19, we should send a Keepalive and start the Keepalive timer. I will pursue this as part of issue 52 if that suits you. I think the text will be the same as whatever we agree for Active state event 19. Tom Petch nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>; idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu> Cc: yakov@juniper.net <yakov@juniper.net> Date: 30 January 2003 10:39 Subject: issues 12 - consensus & two changes - 2nd message Tom and idr: I believe issues 12 is in consensus. Please ack the new text below. Sue ================== Change 1: new text Active state - event 19 If an Open is received with the Open Delay timer is running [Event 19], the local system - clears the connect retry timer (cleared to zero), - stops and clears the Open Delay timer - completes the BGP initialization, - stops and clears the Open Delay timer - sends an OPEN message, - send a Keepalive message, - if the hold timer value is non-zero, - starts the keepalive timer to initial value, - resets the hold timer to the negotiated value, else if the hold timer is zero - resets the keepalive timer (set to zero), - resets the hold timer to zero. - changes its state to OpenConfirm. If the value of the autonomous system field is the same as the local Autonomous System number, set the connection status to an internal connection; otherwise it is "external". Change 2 - Connect state event 17 (currently defined as going to Active) event 9 (stays in Connect state) new Text: In response to the connect retry timer expires event [Event 9], the local system: - drops the TCP connection, - restarts the connect retry timer, - stops the Open Delay timer and resets the timer to zero, - initiates a TCP connection to the other BGP peer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - stays in Connect state. If the TCP connection fails [Event17], the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - stops the Open Delay timer and resets value to zero, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes its state to Active. Sue Hares Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06523 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:04:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 87DB2913A2; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:53:48 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id BF74D9132E; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:51:53 -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 7EBC2912EF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1F6555F2DF; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:00:57 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD965E5EE for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:52:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0UAq9623434 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:52:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0UAq2C23416 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:52:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Closure on #12 - 1st message Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:52:02 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6185F@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Closure on #12 Thread-Index: AcLHu8K0ztZgA5RORaqBGeqPn7s0xA== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id KAA06523 I've added stop Open delay timer suggested by Tom Petch. Please close this item Sue ------------ Connect state: ---------------------- In response to the connect retry timer expires event [Event 9], the local system: - drops the TCP connection, - restarts the connect retry timer, - stops the Open Delay timer and resets the timer to zero, - initiates a TCP connection to the other BGP peer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - stays in Connect state. .... If the TCP connection fails [Event17], the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - stops the Open Delay timer and resets value to zero, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes its state to Active. ========== That eliminates most but not all of the possibilities I mentioned. I now believe we would need to add the action 'stop OpenDelay timer' for Connect state event 17 (currently defined as going to Active) event 9 (stays in Connect state) in order to stop event 19 in Open Sent This was discussed in the "bgp 18 WG Last Call fsm missing keepalive" thread. And also in the "Event 19 in Open Sent state was Re: bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing keepalive" thread. 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 KAA06376 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:01:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8D2A8912FD; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:52:00 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7AB3D9131D; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:51:47 -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 CCBE7912ED for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A80A05E510; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:57:21 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDFD5FF8E for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0UAdDU23181 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0UAcPC23003 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: Draft 19 - issue #21 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:25 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA61855@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft 19 - issue #21 Thread-Index: AcLCP9Y/Dd4BowA5QRKLu5xodLiWqAFbOx3w From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id KAA06376 fixed in text. Thanks for the editing. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Tom Petch [mailto:nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:53 PM To: Susan Hares; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Draft 19 - issue #21 Sue two minor editorial comments inline Tom Petch -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu> Date: 20 January 2003 19:39 Subject: Draft 19 - issue #21 I will accept the new text for the following total text: Event8: Idle hold timer expires Definition: An event generated when the Idle Hold Timer expires indicating that the session has completed a back-off period to prevent bgp peer oscillation. The Idle Hold Timer is only used when the persistent peer oscillation damping function is enabled. Implementations not implementing the presistent peer ** persistent oscillation damping functions may not have the Idle Hold ** function ** (because we only have function not functions in the previous sentence) Timer. Status: Optional Sue Hares 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 JAA04623 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:13:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A381D91230; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:12:48 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6D40691233; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:12:48 -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 201E391230 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:12:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 65B2D5E640; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:54:38 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E0E627E6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:58:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0UAwhJ23564 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:58:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0UAwWC23534 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:58:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: BGP Draft 19 - Close open items 22 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:58:31 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA61860@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BGP Draft 19 - Close open items 22 Thread-Index: AcLF7JfLcKA3/tVNRKC/4bFxvfqghwBuJd5Q From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai." <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu>, <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id JAA04623 Siva: I'll be glad to 9) accept connections from un-configured peers % yes - this is the correct text: 5) BGP stop_peer_flap flag Sue -----Original Message----- From: Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai. [mailto:siva@ctd.hcltech.com] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:15 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: Sivananda Ramnath (E-mail) Subject: RE: BGP Draft 19 - Close open items 22 Hello, Do you think the following should also be added to this list: * Accept connections from un-configured peers Also, for item 5: > 5) BGP stop_peer_flag flag Can I assume you meant % 5) BGP stop_peer_flap flag Siva (siva@ctd.hcltech.com) > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hares [mailto:shares@nexthop.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 1:17 AM > To: idr@merit.edu > Subject: BGP Draft 19 - Close open items 22 > > > > Please consider items 22 closed with the following final text: > > > Optional parameters that may be supported either per > connection or per implementation: > > 1) Delay Open flag > 2) Delay Open Timer > 3) Perform automatic start flag > 4) Passive TCP establishment flag > 5) BGP stop_peer_flag flag > 6) Idle Hold timer > 7) Perform automatic stop flag > 8) Perform Collision detect in Establish mode flag > > > Sue > 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 JAA04474 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 05A1691234; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:04:44 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4A80B91239; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:04:40 -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 EF77E9121B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:03:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A2D1D606BE; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:01:21 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C9C606C4 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0UAdMu23185 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0UAcQC23014 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: Draft 19 - Issue 40 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:25 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA61856@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft 19 - Issue 40 Thread-Index: AcLF9/KH2y9c5NyYQeOMj9EqQwlCXwBslCmA From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai." <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id JAA04474 Siva: Thank-you, we'll consider it consensus with no changes to the text. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai. [mailto:siva@ctd.hcltech.com] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:36 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: Sivananda Ramnath (E-mail) Subject: Draft 19 - Issue 40 Hello, I am ok with this approach. My only observation is that by not doing these actions where they are not required, it may be easier to spot errors in an FSM implementation. This, however, can be viewed as a purely implementation issue. Any resolution you have for this issue is fine by me. Sivanand (siva@ctd.hcltech.com) ------------------------------------------------------------ Siva opend with the observation: There are a few sections where the FSM draft states that the Connection Retry timer needs to be reset, wheras the conenct retry timer had been cleared prior to entering that state. We can remove these instructions to clear the connect retry timer. List of places where the connect retry timer need not be cleared a) Handling of Event 19 in the Connect State b) Handling of Events 12 in the Active State c) All cases where it is refered to in the OpenSent, OpenConfirm and Established states Sue replied: Comment: 1) Does it hurt to have the connect retry timer cleared at these points, since it has already been cleared. I felt it eased the implementations to allow the action routines to be shared across as many states as possible. You can see this a bit more actively. 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 JAA04455 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 408199121B; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:04:42 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 8CEEF91230; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:04:36 -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 91ED591221 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:04:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 686B4606DD; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:02:11 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A082606DE for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0UAdSh23212 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0UAcWC23049 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: Draft 19 - Issue 21 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:30 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA61859@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft 19 - Issue 21 Thread-Index: AcLF63iMBweZMZuhR8a/SkORrPorxABuXjLg From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai." <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu>, <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net>, <yakov@juniper.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id JAA04455 Siva's response -----Original Message----- From: Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai. [mailto:siva@ctd.hcltech.com] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:07 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: Sivananda Ramnath (E-mail) Subject: Draft 19 - Issue 21 Hello, Based on revised text, we can move this to consensus. Siva (siva@ctd.hcltech.com) 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 JAA04435 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:08:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id EA89691221; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:04:39 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 66A0691234; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:04:35 -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 D552A91230 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:04:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8BD14606E8; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:02:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A8B606E9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0UAdVi23205 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0UAcVC23037 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: Draft 19 - Issue 24 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:29 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA61858@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft 19 - Issue 24 Thread-Index: AcLF7qVNx5ey8mDDRWe9mqC0lwrxDwBt2B4g From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai." <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: <yakov@juniper.net>, <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net>, <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id JAA04435 Siva and idr-list When I floated example text in these 3 events on draft-15 through draft-18, I receive private concerns on the draft-15 to draft-18 - so I left it out to get consensus. Any strong comments on an adding an example to this item? Sue -----Original Message----- From: Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai. [mailto:siva@ctd.hcltech.com] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:29 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: Sivananda Ramnath (E-mail) Subject: Draft 19 - Issue 24 Hello, The revisions you have included are fine. Is it within the scope of the text to give examples of when Events 3, 5, and 6 occur ? If not, we can consider this issue closed. If you think examples can be included, here is some text: % Event 3: % Examples of this event are: % When a connection is terminated during exchange of Open % messages due to version failure % Event 5: % Examples of this event are: % Similar to Event 3 % Event 6: % Examples of this event are: % Similar to Event 3 and % b) When a Idle Hold timer expires (within local limit) Siva (siva@ctd.hcltech.com) > Siva: > > I believe we have consensus on issue 24. I've added the > example for an automatic stop to the event description. > > New text: > > > Event7: Automatic stop > > Definition: Local system automatically stops the > BGP connection. > > An example of an automatic stop event is > exceeding the number of prefixes for a given > peer and the local system automatically > disconnecting the peer. > > > Status: Optional depending on local system > > Please confirm that we have consensus on this issue. > > Sue 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 HAA26948 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1DCA091218; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:16:09 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 8212B9121B; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:16:05 -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 ABDCA91218 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C15F462A03; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:02:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FEA606EA for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0UAdUd23219 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0UAcXC23064 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: Draft 19 - Issue 44 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:33 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6185B@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft 19 - Issue 44 Thread-Index: AcLF/D7zsUJOOknDSomW2q5XJ0RV6gBwRPPA From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai." <siva@ctd.hcltech.com>, <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>, <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id HAA26948 Siva: Yes, we can change the "D" in state machine to a "y". The issue is what if Connect state occurs and there is not a TCP connection. Should an OPEN with wrong version be accepted? If the Open Delay flag is off, the connection state should not be getting an Open. The "D" action below works for "open delay flag off". The "y" action you suggest can occur if the open delay timer is on. If this is the issue, please confirm. We could say: if open delay flag is on -> y action if open delay flag is off -> D action Please let me know if this is the concern, and suggest text. Thanks for looking through this state change 1 more Time (1MT). Sue -----Original Message----- From: Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai. [mailto:siva@ctd.hcltech.com] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 7:07 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: Sivananda Ramnath (E-mail) Subject: Draft 19 - Issue 44 Hello, "Default event handling" was perhaps a poor choice of words. What I meant is this Event 23 (Notify Message Version error) only indicates a version mismatch. By going through action sequence D, we will be performing peer oscillation damping. Should we perform damping, since this is not really a cause for persistent oscillation ? Also, since we have a distinct event to indicate a version error event, can include text indicating that version negotiation processing should take place upon receipt of this event ? Siva (siva@ctd.hcltech.com) This began with Siva saying: This is currently being handled in the default event processing section. However, we do not need to go through the peer oscillation damping process in this case. Can we change the wordings to reflect this, or move this out of peer oscillation damping processing ? Sue replied: 1) There is no default event handling process in the text, you will need to specify the text. 2) The state table below (hares-statemt-03.txt) states shows the changes ------------- Event 23 states: current Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Cnf Establish ---------------------------------------------------- next state Idle Idle Idle Idle Idle Idle ----------------------------------------------- action V D D Y Y T ============================================== V - Indicate FSM errors and ignore. D - 1) resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), 2) drops the TCP connection, 2) releases all BGP resources, 3) increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, 4) [optionally] performs the bgp peer oscillation damping, and Goes to Idle state. Y 1) resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), 2) Drops the TCP connection, 3) releases all BGP resources, 4) [optionally] This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #25. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 HAA25944 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:07:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DC22491214; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:04:38 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id BA57A91218; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:03:11 -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 DA75691214 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:01:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0A25B628C7; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:00:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D6A6068B for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0UAd2323147 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:39:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0UAcNC22982 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:23 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: issues 12 - consensus & two changes - 2nd message Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:38:22 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA61852@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issues 12 - consensus & two changes Thread-Index: AcLHvRi10WWaSnUZQsG7wB5GXCAO8A== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>, <idr@merit.edu> Cc: <yakov@juniper.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id HAA25944 Tom and idr: I believe issues 12 is in consensus. Please ack the new text below. Sue ================== Change 1: new text Active state - event 19 If an Open is received with the Open Delay timer is running [Event 19], the local system - clears the connect retry timer (cleared to zero), - stops and clears the Open Delay timer - completes the BGP initialization, - stops and clears the Open Delay timer - sends an OPEN message, - send a Keepalive message, - if the hold timer value is non-zero, - starts the keepalive timer to initial value, - resets the hold timer to the negotiated value, else if the hold timer is zero - resets the keepalive timer (set to zero), - resets the hold timer to zero. - changes its state to OpenConfirm. If the value of the autonomous system field is the same as the local Autonomous System number, set the connection status to an internal connection; otherwise it is "external". Change 2 - Connect state event 17 (currently defined as going to Active) event 9 (stays in Connect state) new Text: In response to the connect retry timer expires event [Event 9], the local system: - drops the TCP connection, - restarts the connect retry timer, - stops the Open Delay timer and resets the timer to zero, - initiates a TCP connection to the other BGP peer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - stays in Connect state. If the TCP connection fails [Event17], the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - stops the Open Delay timer and resets value to zero, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes its state to Active. Sue Hares 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 PAA00250 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:44:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id EC0A991378; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:40:42 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3482D9137A; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:40:39 -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 F361B91378 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D06D25DF0F; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:40:34 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from nomad.tcb.net (vdsl-151-118-3-177.dnvr.uswest.net [151.118.3.177]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A865DE6B for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id 309D055F62; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:40:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from nomad.tcb.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FFD33E83; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:40:34 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>, idr@merit.edu, isis-wg@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> Reply-To: danny@tcb.net Subject: GR/NSF Terminology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:40:29 -0700 Message-Id: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk [Folks, notice the cross-post... Perhaps routing-discussion@ietf.org should be the only one to receive replies, please try to respect this]. I think it'd be a good thing for all of the GR/NSF protocol extensions to employ a common set of terminology, instead of each using your own. I believe the OSPF *WG* document currently does the best job with defining terms, etc.., although I'm not sure it's sufficient or accommodates everything. I'd be willing to work on a "generic document" if need be, or would be happy if the current protocol-specific documents (i.e., BGP, IS-IS, OSPF, LDP, RSVP (dead?), VPN stuff, other?) would make some attempt to use the same terms. Any comments? -danny > This is the start of a Working Group last call for > draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt, OSPF Hitless Restart. > All comments must be sent to the OSPF list by Friday, > February 8th, 2003. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt > > My previous list posting on this WG last call was lost or > filtering. My apologies if this is a duplicate. > > Thanks, > Acee & Rohit > -- > Acee Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA25793 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:46:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 15294913B1; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:41:18 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3804C913A8; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:40:47 -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 2A2B091367 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:33:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 12DC15E01D; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:33:39 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AD45DE0F for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0TJXMl10830; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:33:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0TJXIC10823; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:33:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h0TJXIL09786; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:33:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:33:18 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net> Cc: "Reddy, Sudhakar" <sudhakarr@netplane.com>, "'idr@merit.edu'" <idr@merit.edu>, "'Francis.Dupont@inria.fr'" <Francis.Dupont@inria.fr> Subject: Re: Question on constructing nexthop in MP_REACH_NLRI attribute Message-ID: <20030129143318.B1777@nexthop.com> References: <E7E13AAF2F3ED41197C100508BD6A3288E6EBA@india_exch.hyderabad.mindspeed.com> <200301291920.h0TJK1h47033@roque-bsd.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200301291920.h0TJK1h47033@roque-bsd.juniper.net>; from roque@juniper.net on Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:20:01AM -0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk To take a perhaps incorrect stab at this: > Reddy, Sudhakar writes: > > > Hi All, I have a question on constructing the next hop field in > > MP_REACH_NLRI attributes. Section 3 of the RFC 2545 says that: > > > "A BGP speaker shall advertise to its peer in the Network > > Address of NextHop field the global IPv6 address of the next hop, > > potentially followed by the link-local IPv6 address of the next hop" > > > Now my question is: In a scenario where two IPv6 clouds are > > connected by a IPv4 network and the edge routers of both clouds > > Router-A, and Router-B are dual stack routers: > > > If Router A wants to send a MP-BGP update to Router-B, what nexthop > > it should encode while sending update to its peer?. If it has to be > > an IPv6 global address, how the intermediate routers in the IPv4 > > network will resolve this nexthop?. Since they are disconnected IPv6 clouds where the intermediate transport is ipv4, you need some sort of tunnel connecting the two clouds at the border router. The tunnel can be whatever. If the tunnel tehchnology presents to the ipv6 layer a normal ipv6 interface, you would send your global address of your side of the tunnel as expected. Since all routes are extremely likely to be first party routes, you would also send the link local of your side of the tunnel. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 OAA24462 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1C993913D7; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:21:55 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A646C913DB; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:21:54 -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 DC315913D7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 49ED55E025; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:20:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12F95E01D for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:20:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from roque-bsd.juniper.net (roque-bsd.juniper.net [172.17.12.183]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0TJK1S43025; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:20:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from roque@juniper.net) Received: (from roque@localhost) by roque-bsd.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.9.3) id h0TJK1h47033; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:20:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from roque) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:20:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200301291920.h0TJK1h47033@roque-bsd.juniper.net> From: Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Reddy, Sudhakar" <sudhakarr@netplane.com> Cc: "'idr@merit.edu'" <idr@merit.edu>, "'Francis.Dupont@inria.fr'" <Francis.Dupont@inria.fr> Subject: Question on constructing nexthop in MP_REACH_NLRI attribute In-Reply-To: <E7E13AAF2F3ED41197C100508BD6A3288E6EBA@india_exch.hyderabad.mindspeed.com> References: <E7E13AAF2F3ED41197C100508BD6A3288E6EBA@india_exch.hyderabad.mindspeed.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Reddy, Sudhakar writes: > Hi All, I have a question on constructing the next hop field in > MP_REACH_NLRI attributes. Section 3 of the RFC 2545 says that: > "A BGP speaker shall advertise to its peer in the Network > Address of NextHop field the global IPv6 address of the next hop, > potentially followed by the link-local IPv6 address of the next hop" > Now my question is: In a scenario where two IPv6 clouds are > connected by a IPv4 network and the edge routers of both clouds > Router-A, and Router-B are dual stack routers: > If Router A wants to send a MP-BGP update to Router-B, what nexthop > it should encode while sending update to its peer?. If it has to be > an IPv6 global address, how the intermediate routers in the IPv4 > network will resolve this nexthop?. The intermediate ipv4 network should be no different than an intermediate atm or frame network. All these tecnologies can provide transport for IPv6 packets. On all of them the IPv6 interfaces would use IPv6 addresses. Addresses which would be then advertised on an eBGP session... On point-to-point interfaces the link-local addresses are not required or useful. To be more specific, the requirement is that the address used as non-local nexthio on an eBGP peering is an address that is significant across the iBGP mesh of the receiving AS, since by default BGP advertises such an address into iBGP. Somehow i've the impression i didn't answer the right question although... Pedro. 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 MAA21108 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:48:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4AC3A91248; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:48:07 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0E9779136E; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:48:04 -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 3A1AF91383 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5747F5E273; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:47:29 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from colossus.systems.pipex.net (colossus.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.73]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0564D5DE0F for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from tom3 (userbq48.uk.uudial.com [62.188.146.142]) by colossus.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 96E3016000943; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:47:26 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <00d201c2c7be$42c1b560$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> Cc: <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.1 (Draft-19) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:41:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Comments in line Tom Petch nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu> Date: 28 January 2003 22:29 Subject: Re: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.1 (Draft-19) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- >> 45) Event 17 in the Connect state >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- >> Tom then proposed this text: >> >> If the TCP connection fails[Event 17] and the Open Delay >> timer is running, the local system: >> - restarts the connect retry timer, >> - clears the Open Delay timer >> - continues to listen for a connection that may be >> initiated by the remote BGP peer, and >> - changes its state to Active. >> >> If the TCP connection fails [Event17] and the Open Delay >> timer is not running, the local system: >> - drops the TCP connection, >> - releases all BGP resources, > >There are no resources to release while in the connect state. >(Unless we're using this as shorthand for something else - I forget.) I was unsure about this action. It is present for Active state event 17 which is why I put it in, it does include sub-actions such as clear Open Delay timer (not running), clear Connect Retry timer (could be running) so I think it right to play safe and include it. > >> - sets ConnectRetryCnt (the connect retry count) to zero > >I'm forgetting if this action is consistant with everything else. >I don't have a current copy of the FSM and I don't trust -18 to be >current enough. :-) > >This said, why do we go to zero? I could see not incrementing it >and letting the normal decay process deal with it. The same would >apply for the above. Again, I was unsure about this so put it in and waited for comment. I have a chart of 27 events and 6 states in which I have colored in the connect retry and peer oscillation damping actions and it looks like measles; I could not divine the underlying logic. Incrementing the connect retry count would make as much if not more sense to me. (It is zeroed for Manual Stop). But the action '[optionally] perform peer oscillation damping' is yet more erratic (eg for event 10 - Hold Timer expired - it is performed exiting Connect, Active, Established but not Open Confirm or Open Sent) so I left it out. Again, it might make more sense put it in. >> - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), and >> - goes to Idle state. > >Sounds otherwise good. > > >-- >Jeff Haas >NextHop Technologies 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 FAA04906 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:06:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id EC83D9135C; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:03:48 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 61DA69135E; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:03:46 -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 CA3239135C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:03:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A522C5DF74; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:03:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from xover.netplane.com (unknown [12.27.183.253]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAB05DE39 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:03:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by XOVER.dedham.mindspeed.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <D59K72QM>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:03:16 -0500 Message-ID: <E7E13AAF2F3ED41197C100508BD6A3288E6EBA@india_exch.hyderabad.mindspeed.com> From: "Reddy, Sudhakar" <sudhakarr@netplane.com> To: "'idr@merit.edu'" <idr@merit.edu>, "'roque@cisco.com'" <roque@cisco.com>, "'Francis.Dupont@inria.fr'" <Francis.Dupont@inria.fr> Cc: "Reddy, Sudhakar" <sudhakarr@netplane.com> Subject: Question on constructing nexthop in MP_REACH_NLRI attribute Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:04:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi All, I have a question on constructing the next hop field in MP_REACH_NLRI attributes. Section 3 of the RFC 2545 says that: "A BGP speaker shall advertise to its peer in the Network Address of NextHop field the global IPv6 address of the next hop, potentially followed by the link-local IPv6 address of the next hop" Now my question is: In a scenario where two IPv6 clouds are connected by a IPv4 network and the edge routers of both clouds Router-A, and Router-B are dual stack routers: If Router A wants to send a MP-BGP update to Router-B, what nexthop it should encode while sending update to its peer?. If it has to be an IPv6 global address, how the intermediate routers in the IPv4 network will resolve this nexthop?. Thanks, Sudhakar ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ Sudhakar Reddy mailto:sudhakarr@netplane.com http://www.netplane.com 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 CAA28845 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:02:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id ACEBB9123F; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:01:00 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 8891691321; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:00:24 -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 4CEC09123F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:00:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id F3D705DDE3; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:00:20 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407F35DDD2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:00:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA15050; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:57:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:57:11 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> Cc: David Meyer <dmm@sprint.net>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, idr@merit.edu, keyupate@cisco.com Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Message-ID: <20030128225711.C25084@demiurge.exodus.net> References: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB8C@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB8C@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com>; from shares@nexthop.com on Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 05:18:18PM -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue, I don't think the status of BGP3 affects our RFP's in the least. We could care less if a vendor has BGP3 support, or EGP support for that matter. And at this point, vendors should know that. I certainly don't mind the idea of cleaning up all the old documents, and I would second the suggestion that we do a cleanup after we get some of the more pressing issues complete. Andrew On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote: > Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 > Subject: RE: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:18:18 -0500 > X-MS-Has-Attach: > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: > Thread-Topic: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt > Thread-Index: AcLHGNZdpSDt/fOrQCi6V1ep2DNZvQAAMkQQ > From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> > To: "David Meyer" <dmm@sprint.net>, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> > Cc: <idr@merit.edu>, <keyupate@cisco.com> > X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 > Precedence: bulk > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 > tests=AWL,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 > version=2.43 > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2003 22:22:38.0348 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3D6E4C0:01C2C71B] > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by xix-w.bengi.exodus.net id h0SM4kZ04308 > > Dave and Randy: > > Does historic hurt carrier's and > RPF process or does it help? If it is neutral > do it to as time allows. > > Dave and other operators... > let us know if historic helps you in your > RFPs. > > Sue > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Meyer [mailto:dmm@sprint.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:01 PM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: idr@merit.edu; keyupate@cisco.com > Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt > > > >> i suspect that if we tried to make historic all unused protocols, the > >> drafting and administrative load would be larger than that of new > >> productive work. then again, i could be talking through my hat as > >> usual. > > Nah, you make a very good point. > > Dave 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 RAA11329 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:45:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id ECE1491349; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:45:07 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7B1909134B; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:45:06 -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 EA85E91349 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:45:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 336B55DF85; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:45:03 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213D45DF00 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:45:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0SMiYx89728; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:44:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0SMiVC89721; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:44:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h0SMiUG21849; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:44:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:44:30 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org> Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Message-ID: <20030128174430.N7583@nexthop.com> References: <20030128165647.J7583@nexthop.com> <200301282231.RAA27312@workhorse.fictitious.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200301282231.RAA27312@workhorse.fictitious.org>; from curtis@fictitious.org on Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 05:31:01PM -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 05:31:01PM -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > How about if after we update both rfc1771 and rfc1772, the WG puts > together a list of considered harmful and should be moved to historic > prior WG products. A one time request to the IESG and RFC editor > should not be overwhelming. BGP3 is just as historic as EGP. Fine words of wisdom. > Curtis -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 RAA11077 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 677E691356; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:34:34 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 58CA591349; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:34:28 -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 C4ADB91356 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:33:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A0A045DE19; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:33:48 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163145DD9F for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:33:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0SMXlt89463 for idr@merit.edu; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:33:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0SMXiC89456 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:33:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h0SMXix20735 for idr@merit.edu; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:33:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:33:44 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: RE: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Message-ID: <20030128173344.M7583@nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk A somewhat random observation. Since we have decided that atomic aggregate is slightly broken in some circumstances from the original intent (at least for the circumstances on which we probably should set it), this affects bgp-4's interopability with bgp-3 where we have: bgp-4 -> bgp-3 -> bgp-4 As far as I know, no one still runs bgp-3 and connects to the Internet. Given the potential issue, perhaps a move to historic wouldn't hurt. And then again, maybe we have better things to do - even though this shouldn't take much time at the WG level. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 RAA10778 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 635869134D; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:30:21 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id AAF289134B; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:30:20 -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 A3A179134D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:30:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C2A5B5DF00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:30:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9601C5DDFD for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:30:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27312; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:31:01 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200301282231.RAA27312@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:47 EST." <20030128165647.J7583@nexthop.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:31:01 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <20030128165647.J7583@nexthop.com>, Jeffrey Haas writes: > It does, however, prevent someone from writing a "BGP-3 considered harmful" > draft. > > 1/2 ;-) > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:54:34PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > > i suspect that if we tried to make historic all unused protocols, the > > drafting and administrative load would be larger than that of new > > productive work. then again, i could be talking through my hat as > > usual. > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies How about if after we update both rfc1771 and rfc1772, the WG puts together a list of considered harmful and should be moved to historic prior WG products. A one time request to the IESG and RFC editor should not be overwhelming. BGP3 is just as historic as EGP. Curtis 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 RAA10629 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:29:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9A08791348; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:29:45 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 630C391349; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:29:45 -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 1AB1791348 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:29:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 046E35DF00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:29:44 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sith.maoz.com (sith.maoz.com [205.167.76.10]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556415DDFD for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:29:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dmm@localhost) by sith.maoz.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h0SMTLC1011692; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:29:21 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:29:21 -0800 From: David Meyer <dmm@sprint.net> To: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, idr@merit.edu, keyupate@cisco.com Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Message-ID: <20030128142921.A11629@sprint.net> References: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB8C@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB8C@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com>; from shares@nexthop.com on Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 05:18:18PM -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue, >> Does historic hurt carrier's and >> RPF process or does it help? If it is neutral >> do it to as time allows. I would say historic can help, in the following way: If vendor X decides that they have to implement BGP-3 because it's a possible check box (and implements it), then I (as a carrier) am hurt because of the extra, potentially unused code that I have to carry. Of course, this assumes that vendor X's s/w architecture requires that I have to do so. Minimally, I am hurt if vendor X put s/w engineering cycles to BGP-3 (or similar), if for no other reason that it will ultimately wind up in the cost of X's product (there are, of course, many other ways unused code can wind up hurting). >> Dave and other operators... >> let us know if historic helps you in your >> RFPs. From the point of view of just building an RFP, yes, it would help in that it would provide one less possible (however optional) check box. All of that being said, I can see Randy's point. Dave 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 RAA10603 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:29:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 70EA591227; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:29:00 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 40C8091348; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:29:00 -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 2C71491227 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:28:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 19F065DF4E; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:28:59 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A0A5DD9F for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:28:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0SMSqW89279; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:28:52 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0SMSmC89271; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:28:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h0SMSmX20360; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:28:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:28:48 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.1 (Draft-19) Message-ID: <20030128172848.L7583@nexthop.com> References: <20030120170114.F24846@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20030120170114.F24846@demiurge.exodus.net>; from andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net on Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 05:01:14PM -0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 45) Event 17 in the Connect state > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tom then proposed this text: > > If the TCP connection fails[Event 17] and the Open Delay > timer is running, the local system: > - restarts the connect retry timer, > - clears the Open Delay timer > - continues to listen for a connection that may be > initiated by the remote BGP peer, and > - changes its state to Active. > > If the TCP connection fails [Event17] and the Open Delay > timer is not running, the local system: > - drops the TCP connection, > - releases all BGP resources, There are no resources to release while in the connect state. (Unless we're using this as shorthand for something else - I forget.) > - sets ConnectRetryCnt (the connect retry count) to zero I'm forgetting if this action is consistant with everything else. I don't have a current copy of the FSM and I don't trust -18 to be current enough. :-) This said, why do we go to zero? I could see not incrementing it and letting the normal decay process deal with it. The same would apply for the above. > - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), and > - goes to Idle state. Sounds otherwise good. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 RAA10393 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:22:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D68F69120E; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:20:54 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 53F659134B; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:20:49 -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 F151E9120E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:18:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D60D95DDFD; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:18:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A725DD9F for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:18:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0SMIYV88980 for idr@merit.edu; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:18:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0SMIIC88930 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:18:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:18:18 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB8C@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Thread-Index: AcLHGNZdpSDt/fOrQCi6V1ep2DNZvQAAMkQQ From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "David Meyer" <dmm@sprint.net>, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu>, <keyupate@cisco.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id RAA10393 Dave and Randy: Does historic hurt carrier's and RPF process or does it help? If it is neutral do it to as time allows. Dave and other operators... let us know if historic helps you in your RFPs. Sue -----Original Message----- From: David Meyer [mailto:dmm@sprint.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:01 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: idr@merit.edu; keyupate@cisco.com Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt >> i suspect that if we tried to make historic all unused protocols, the >> drafting and administrative load would be larger than that of new >> productive work. then again, i could be talking through my hat as >> usual. Nah, you make a very good point. Dave 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 RAA09893 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:10:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BA82F91352; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:06:43 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 8F5749134B; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:06:35 -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 229BD91352 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:06:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0A6835DEDD; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:06:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BCD5DD9E for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:06:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from roam.psg.com ([147.28.4.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18dds4-000EhI-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:06:20 -0800 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=roam.psg.com ident=randy) by roam.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18dds2-0001p4-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:06:18 -0800 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org> Cc: idr@merit.edu, keyupate@cisco.com Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt References: <E18ddL2-0001mA-00@roam.psg.com> <200301282157.QAA26739@workhorse.fictitious.org> Message-Id: <E18dds2-0001p4-00@roam.psg.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:06:18 -0800 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > Cleanup wouldn't hurt. productive work would help. we can choose how we spend our time. 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 RAA09770 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:07:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 88F8A9134C; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:06:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 739269134F; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:06:32 -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 D3F5391349 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B9E425DEBA; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:05:28 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F2115DE98 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0SM5QC88451; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:05:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0SM5MC88444; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:05:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h0SM5M819077; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:05:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:05:22 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue 26 BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) Message-ID: <20030128170522.K7583@nexthop.com> References: <003901c2aa95$2f143e20$0301a8c0@tom3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <003901c2aa95$2f143e20$0301a8c0@tom3>; from nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com on Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 03:06:42PM -0000 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 03:06:42PM -0000, Tom Petch wrote: > If we do add > 3) Automatic start with passive TCP establishment and bgp_stop_flap > option set > > which I understand is Sue's resolution, then for Idle state the > actions are straightforward but for the other five, is the event > completely ignored? >From the current draft: The start events [Event 1, 3-6] are ignored in connect state. The start events [Event1, 3-6] are ignored in the Active state. The Start events [Event1, 3-6] are ignored in the OpenSent state. Any start event [Event1, 3-6] is ignored in the OpenConfirm state. Any start event (Event 1, 3-6) is ignored in the Established state. > If so, does it mean that the passive flag and the > bgp_stop_flap option are ignored and we carry on as if we were when we > were started which may have been without them. Or is the fact of > starting ignored but the flags remain set and so color the effect of > other events? Needs defining. "ignore" means do nothing. This means don't twiddle with the flags. :-) -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 RAA09602 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 41A0691351; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:01:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B88ED91355; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:01:00 -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 CEAA791351 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:00:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 90D485DD9E; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:00:50 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sith.maoz.com (sith.maoz.com [205.167.76.10]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15885DEDD for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dmm@localhost) by sith.maoz.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h0SM1HVK011342; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:01:17 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:01:17 -0800 From: David Meyer <dmm@sprint.net> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu, keyupate@cisco.com Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Message-ID: <20030128140117.A11337@sprint.net> References: <200301282124.h0SLOml9011040@sith.maoz.com> <E18ddL2-0001mA-00@roam.psg.com> <20030128135134.A11201@sprint.net> <E18ddgg-0001oP-00@roam.psg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <E18ddgg-0001oP-00@roam.psg.com>; from randy@psg.com on Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:54:34PM -0800 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk >> i suspect that if we tried to make historic all unused protocols, the >> drafting and administrative load would be larger than that of new >> productive work. then again, i could be talking through my hat as >> usual. Nah, you make a very good point. Dave 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 QAA09394 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:57:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6C9499134A; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:57 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1D31091349; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:57 -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 2EAEA91347 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1F8895DE1E; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:55 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896355DD9E for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0SLuqN88149; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:52 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0SLulC88133; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h0SLulM17909; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:47 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Message-ID: <20030128165647.J7583@nexthop.com> References: <200301282124.h0SLOml9011040@sith.maoz.com> <E18ddL2-0001mA-00@roam.psg.com> <20030128135134.A11201@sprint.net> <E18ddgg-0001oP-00@roam.psg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <E18ddgg-0001oP-00@roam.psg.com>; from randy@psg.com on Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:54:34PM -0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk It does, however, prevent someone from writing a "BGP-3 considered harmful" draft. 1/2 ;-) On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:54:34PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > i suspect that if we tried to make historic all unused protocols, the > drafting and administrative load would be larger than that of new > productive work. then again, i could be talking through my hat as > usual. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 QAA09378 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3B7C491346; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:39 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0075991347; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:38 -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 84BA391346 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 71C915DEB0; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A74945DE1E for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26739; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:57:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200301282157.QAA26739@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Cc: David Meyer <dmm@sprint.net>, internet-drafts@ietf.org, idr@merit.edu, keyupate@cisco.com Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:32:12 PST." <E18ddL2-0001mA-00@roam.psg.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:57:13 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <E18ddL2-0001mA-00@roam.psg.com>, Randy Bush writes: > there are many protocols which are no longer used. there is a feeling > that they should only be moved to historic if their seeming current > could lead to damage. > > randy Cleanup wouldn't hurt. RFC1772 could be move to historic but it hasn't yet been replaced. :( Curtis 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 QAA09359 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7197191345; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:18 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 368B491346; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:18 -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 1EF0291345 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0D3C75DE1E; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7154C5DEB0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0SLuC788049; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:12 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0SLtvC88014; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:55:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h0SLtul17762; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:55:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:55:56 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Cc: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com>, idr <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: BGP-draft-19: Issue 40 Clear Connect retry timer Message-ID: <20030128165556.I7583@nexthop.com> References: <001e01c2c634$311bcde0$0301a8c0@tom3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <001e01c2c634$311bcde0$0301a8c0@tom3>; from nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com on Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:40:02PM -0000 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I would tend to agree. I would suggest, Sue, that when all is said and done that actions that are commonly taken in a given order be grouped together to make it obvious that "this cluster of things happens more than once". This was present in some of your previous versions I helped you review. :-) On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:40:02PM -0000, Tom Petch wrote: > Issue 40, outstanding, no consensus, suggests removing the action > 'clear connect retry timer' from many places since the action is not > needed there. > > I propose we leave it in and close this issue. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 QAA09301 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:54:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A924C91344; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:54:40 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6C10391345; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:54:40 -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 7D0E691344 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:54:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 66FE75DE1E; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:54:39 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA025DD9E for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:54:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from roam.psg.com ([147.28.4.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18ddgh-000E4F-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:54:36 -0800 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=roam.psg.com ident=randy) by roam.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18ddgg-0001oP-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:54:34 -0800 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Meyer <dmm@sprint.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu, keyupate@cisco.com Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt References: <200301282124.h0SLOml9011040@sith.maoz.com> <E18ddL2-0001mA-00@roam.psg.com> <20030128135134.A11201@sprint.net> Message-Id: <E18ddgg-0001oP-00@roam.psg.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:54:34 -0800 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk i suspect that if we tried to make historic all unused protocols, the drafting and administrative load would be larger than that of new productive work. then again, i could be talking through my hat as usual. randy 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 QAA09250 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:53:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2E60A9133F; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:53:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EFB9191344; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:53:15 -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 D7F3F9133F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:53:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C994C5DEB0; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:53:14 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6FF5DD9E for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:53:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0SLr7387862; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:53:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0SLr4C87855; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:53:04 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h0SLr4u17358; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:53:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:53:04 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48 Message-ID: <20030128165303.H7583@nexthop.com> References: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617B3@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> <20030121141159.D12154@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20030121141159.D12154@demiurge.exodus.net>; from andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net on Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 02:11:59PM -0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 02:11:59PM -0800, andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net wrote: > > Issue 52 - > > status: non-consensus > > > > <---- Open [Open sent state] > > open ----> > > [Event 18 in Open Sent > > <----- Keepalive > > > > Event 18: > > - clears BGP delay timer > > - resets BGP connect timer > > - sends Keepalive message > > - if negotiated hold timer is zero, > > o reset keepalive timer, > > o reset hold timer. > > > > - if negotiated hold timer is non-zero > > o set keepalive timer, > > o set hold timer to negotiated value. > > > > > > Here the question is, do you want to send a 2nd > > keepalive if the keepalive timer expires in > > Open Confirm. > > > > The current draft allows this until the hold timer > > expires. The sequence would be: > > > > <---- open [open sent] > > open --> [event 18] > > > > <-----keepalive > > > > [keepalive timeout [Event 11] > > <---- Keepalive > > > > [Keepalive time out [Event 11] > > <--- Keepalive > > > > [hold time-out, Event 10] > > <---Notification > > drop TCP connection > > I think we're waiting for more implementor's responses on this one. GateD will start its keepalive timer while in this state, so multiple keepalives will be sent. As someone previously said, this is a "yawn" issue. But to choose one way or the other, we may potentially make someone in non-compliance. Does anyone else care to respond on their implementation's behavior? > Andrew -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 QAA09208 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:52:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E4CA091209; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:51:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9B0F39133F; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:51:21 -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 6F3F291209 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:51:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 55A035DEB0; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:51:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sith.maoz.com (sith.maoz.com [205.167.76.10]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3515DE1E for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:51:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dmm@localhost) by sith.maoz.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h0SLpY9V011205; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:51:34 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:51:34 -0800 From: David Meyer <dmm@sprint.net> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Cc: internet-drafts@ietf.org, idr@merit.edu, keyupate@cisco.com Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Message-ID: <20030128135134.A11201@sprint.net> References: <200301282124.h0SLOml9011040@sith.maoz.com> <E18ddL2-0001mA-00@roam.psg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <E18ddL2-0001mA-00@roam.psg.com>; from randy@psg.com on Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:32:12PM -0800 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Randy, >> there are many protocols which are no longer used. there is a feeling >> that they should only be moved to historic if their seeming current >> could lead to damage. Got it, thanks. Maybe it's not worth doing these then. We can just leave it as is. Dave 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 QAA08577 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:33:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id F18C391342; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:32:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7E6DF91343; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:32:21 -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 8BE4291342 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:32:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 788825DE74; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:32:19 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508B55DE1E for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:32:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from roam.psg.com ([147.28.4.2]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18ddL4-000Czn-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:32:14 -0800 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=roam.psg.com ident=randy) by roam.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18ddL2-0001mA-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:32:12 -0800 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Meyer <dmm@sprint.net> Cc: internet-drafts@ietf.org, idr@merit.edu, keyupate@cisco.com Subject: Re: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt References: <200301282124.h0SLOml9011040@sith.maoz.com> Message-Id: <E18ddL2-0001mA-00@roam.psg.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:32:12 -0800 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk there are many protocols which are no longer used. there is a feeling that they should only be moved to historic if their seeming current could lead to damage. randy 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 QAA08239 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:24:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 446E59133D; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:24:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DB2B19133F; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:24:34 -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 D839A9133C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:24:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1173C5DF28; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:24:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sith.maoz.com (sith.maoz.com [205.167.76.10]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F345DF44 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:24:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dmm@localhost) by sith.maoz.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h0SLOml9011040; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:24:48 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:24:48 -0800 Message-Id: <200301282124.h0SLOml9011040@sith.maoz.com> From: David Meyer <dmm@sprint.net> To: internet-drafts@ietf.org Cc: idr@merit.edu, keyupate@cisco.com Subject: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Thanks, Dave ----- INTERNET-DRAFT David Meyer draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt Keyur Patel 2003.07.28 Request to Move RFC1266 to Historic Status Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 0. Abstract RFC1266 [RFC1266], "Experience with the BGP Protocol" documents how the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have been satisfied by a BGP-3, a technology which is no longer commonly used. This document requests that RFC 1266 be moved to historic status. 1. Details During a review of internet standards relating to BGP, it became apparent that the Experience with BGP-3 Protocol, as described in RFC1266, is not common usage (if at all). Since this protocol has not been in use in the public internet for many years (it is obsoleted by BGP-4 [RFC1774]), it is proposed to reclassify it to historic. Patel, Meyer Expires 2003.08.08 [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT Request to Move RFC1266 to Historic Status 2003.07.28 2. Security Considerations Moving RFC1266 to historic has no known effect on the security of the internet. 3. References [RFC1774] P. Traina (Editors) "BGP-4 Protocol Analysis" March, 1995. 4. Authors' Addresses David Meyer Email: dmm@maoz.com Keyur Patel Email: keyupate@cisco.com 5. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY Meyer, Patel Expires 2003.08.08 [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT Request to Move RFC1266 to Historic Status 2003.07.28 RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Patel, Meyer Expires 2003.08.08 [Page 3] 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 QAA08207 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:24:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D3C6C9120D; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:23:43 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A3ACD91339; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:23:43 -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 25BF39120D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:23:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0D3475DEC6; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:23:42 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sith.maoz.com (sith.maoz.com [205.167.76.10]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EADE5DE74 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:23:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dmm@localhost) by sith.maoz.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h0SLNsYv011014; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:23:54 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:23:54 -0800 Message-Id: <200301282123.h0SLNsYv011014@sith.maoz.com> From: David Meyer <dmm@sprint.net> To: internet-drafts@ietf.org Cc: idr@merit.edu, keyupate@cisco.com Subject: please post draft-meyer-rfc1265-historic-00.txt Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Thanks, Dave ----- INTERNET-DRAFT David Meyer draft-meyer-rfc1265-historic-00.txt Keyur Patel 2003.07.28 Request to Move RFC1265 to Historic Status Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 0. Abstract RFC1265 [RFC1265], "BGP protocol Analysis" documents how the requirements for advancing a routing protocl to Draft Standard have been satisfied by a BGP-3, a technology which is no longer commonly used. This document requests that RFC 1265 be moved to historic status. 1. Details During a review of internet standards relating to BGP, it became apparent that the BGP-3 Protocol Analysis, as described in RFC1265, is not common usage (if at all). Since this protcol has not been in use in the public internet for many years (it is obsoleted by BGP-4 [RFC1774]), it is proposed to reclassify it to historic. Meyer, Patel Expires 2003.08.08 [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT Request to Move RFC1265 to Historic Status 2003.07.28 2. Security Considerations Moving RFC1265 to historic has no known effect on the security of the internet. 3. References [RFC1774] P. Traina (Editors) "BGP-4 Protocol Analysis" March, 1995. 4. Authors' Addresses David Meyer Email: dmm@maoz.com Keyur Patel Email: keyupate@cisco.com 5. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY Meyer, Patel Expires 2003.08.08 [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT Request to Move RFC1265 to Historic Status 2003.07.28 RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Meyer Expires 2003.08.08 [Page 3] 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 OAA03328 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:07:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9E09191354; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:02:49 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4F4C391334; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:02:48 -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 127D191354 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id ED1135DE74; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:02:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net (shockwave.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2825DDBA for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:02:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from tom3 (userca57.uk.uudial.com [62.188.150.125]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 7DA911600B775; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:02:33 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <001401c2c6ff$97322040$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com>, "idr" <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: Draft bgp19 - issue #42 NOTIFICATION before OPEN Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:00:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Isssue 42 queries whether or not we can send a NOTIFICATION when we have not sucessfully exchanged OPENs. I propose we should, following the suggestions of Jeff and Yakov. As Yakov suggested, this requires the removal of the second sentence, first paragraph, of 4.2 which implies a NOTIFICATION can only be sent after a succesful exchange of OPENs. I think this fits best with the other references to the uses of NOTIFICATION in the draft. In terms of the FSM, it means that in Connect and Active states, on receipt of events 20 or 21, we should send a NOTIFICATION so that the last section starting In response to any other event............. is replaced by (and noting we have agreed to drop references to MIB actions) If the BGP message header checking or OPEN message checking detect an error (see Section 6.2) [Events 20 or 21], the local system: - sends a NOTIFICATION message with the appropriate error code, - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), - releases all BGP resources, - drops the TCP connection - increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, - [optionally] performs peer oscillation damping - and goes to the Idle state. In response to any other event (Events 7-8, 10-11,18, 22-27), the local system: - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), - releases all BGP resources, - drops the TCP connection, - increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by one, - [optionally] performs peer oscillation damping, - and goes to the Idle state (Note that this text is not quite watertight. Suppose we are in Active state, having been started with CRT running, receive an SYN (event 13), send SYN-ACK and then get a malformed message (events 20/21). We have not yet received an ACK and so should not send anything over TCP; I would expect TCP to buffer this awaiting the ACK except we then take down the TCP connection - or try to; I don't know what happens next but regard it as sufficiently obscure not to be concerned). (My other concern is greater; why do we now not send NOTIFICATIONs for other events; in Open Sent, Open Confirm or Established, we send one for the 'default event list' so what makes events 20 and 21 in Active and Connect so special? I can justify the absence of a NOTIFICATION for events 7, 8, 10, 11, 18, 22 since there is no evidence of a TCP connection to send it on; but events 23-27 in Active or Connect say we have received an erroneous message, the TCP connection is there so why not send a NOTIFICATION? Event7: Automatic stop Event8: Idle hold timer expires Event10: Hold timer expires Event11: Keepalive timer expires Event18: BGPOpen Event22: Open collision dump Event23: NotifMsgVerErr Event24: NotifMsg Event25: KeepAliveMsg Event26: UpdateMsg Event27: UpdateMsgErr Tom Petch nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com 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 PAA12702 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:27:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E2933912FC; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:21:04 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0ADC091302; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:20:51 -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 ED461912FF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:17:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B05365DEC2; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:17:13 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from web14104.mail.yahoo.com (web14104.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.172.134]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 12EEE5DDD9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:17:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030127201710.68676.qmail@web14104.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [47.234.0.51] by web14104.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:17:10 PST Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:17:10 -0800 (PST) From: PamSri <pamsri01@yahoo.com> Subject: Archieves for this mailing list To: idr@merit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi , Can someone point me to the archieves for this mailing list, so that i can review some of the past discussions. Thanks sri __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com 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 NAA08315 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:50:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2D285912B7; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:47:54 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A1654912BC; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:47:53 -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 BA367912B7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:46:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9540C5DD91; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:46:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net (shockwave.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A995DD8D for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:46:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from tom3 (usercq13.uk.uudial.com [62.188.156.141]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A04B160018B6; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:46:33 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <001e01c2c634$311bcde0$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> Cc: "idr" <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: BGP-draft-19: Issue 40 Clear Connect retry timer Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:40:02 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Issue 40, outstanding, no consensus, suggests removing the action 'clear connect retry timer' from many places since the action is not needed there. I propose we leave it in and close this issue. 1) To take out an action as redundant you need to be supremely confident that it really cannot make a difference. I am not (supremely confident); rather, the more I look at the FSM, the more places I find where actions are missing, as I have posted to the list, from obscure yet possible sequences of events and timing. And there is an outstanding issue of mine which flagged seven places where the next state was missing and so I think it impossible for any one to be confident that any particular action is redundant until that is cleared up and that is proving complex in some cases. So, play safe, keep them in. 2) The argument for removing them is that the number of possible distinct action lists is increased. True - it will mean that an implementor will have to code more code when first implementing BGP. For me this is no contest; keeping it safe at the possible cost of redundancy outweighs the one-off cost of additional implementation. So keep the actions in and close the issue. Tom Petch nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com 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 SAA15598 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:19:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5E79391250; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:18:57 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 09A9091251; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:18:56 -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 4A0F691250 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CE8475E079; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:18:53 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B7D5DFD0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:18:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA00482; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:15:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:15:55 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: idr@merit.edu, ptomaine@shubbery.net Cc: andrewl@cw.net Subject: BGP Flexible Communities Draft Message-ID: <20030124151555.D28051@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Greetings, Attached is my proposal for third-generation BGP communities. This is a follow up to my presentation at the Yokohama meeting last summer. The draft incorporates some more ideas since that presentation, but the core idea of having a variable length BGP community is the same. Comments are appreceated! This should also show up in the internet-drafts repository in a few days. Andrew --DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-lange-flexible-communities-00.txt" Internet Engineering Task Force A. Lange INTERNET DRAFT Cable & Wireless December 2002 Expires June 2003 Flexible BGP Communities <draft-lange-flexible-bgp-communities-00.txt> Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document defines a new attribute for BGP called the Flexible Community attribute. Flexible Communities build on the experience and utility of the standard BGP community, and the extended BGP community attributes. This attribute allows operators to associate structured information with a route or set of routes. This information can be then be used to execute routing policy. An enhanced version of communities is necessary to accomodate IPv6, 4- byte ASN's, and introduce a more extensible and flexible policy expression. This document also introduces the concept of Neighbor Classes. A Neighbor Class is applied to a group of BGP neighbors who share certain attributes. For example, the PEER Neighbor Class could be applied to BGP sessions between ASN X and other networks with which ASN X has a non-transit peering relationship. Lange [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 Table of Contents Status of this Memo......................................... 1 Abstract.................................................... 1 1. Introduction............................................ 2 2. The BGP Flexible Community Attribute.................... 3 2.1 Transitivity Field..................................... 4 2.2 Structure Field........................................ 4 2.3 Type Field............................................. 5 2.4 Length Field........................................... 5 3. Locally Defined Structures and Types.................... 5 4. Neighbor Classes........................................ 6 4.1 Locally Defined Neighbor Classes....................... 7 4.2 Defined Neighbor Classes............................... 7 5. Defined Flexible BGP Community Structures............... 8 6. Base BGP Flexible Community Type (Opaque Type).......... 9 7. Defined Flexible BGP Community Types.................... 10 7.1 NO_EXPORT.............................................. 10 7.2 ONLY_EXPORT............................................ 10 7.3 ANNOUNCE_WITH.......................................... 11 7.4 PREPEND................................................ 12 7.5 The BGP VPN Communities................................ 13 8. New Capability Code for Flexible Communities............ 14 9. Aggregation............................................. 14 10. Operations............................................. 14 11. Security Considerations................................ 15 12. IANA Considerations.................................... 15 13. References............................................. 16 14. Acknowledgements....................................... 16 15. Author's Address....................................... 16 Specification of Requirements The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 1. Introduction This attribute represents the third generation of the BGP community attribute. The first generation is documented in RFC1997 [RFC1997]. The second generation, the extended community, is documented in EX- COMM [EX-COMM]. The Flexible Community Attribute provides a number of important enhancements over the existing BGP Community Attribute and BGP Extended Community Attribute. These enhancements are: - Support for IPv6. Lange [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 - More efficent encoding of lists of data, for example, a list of ASNs. - Clean support for a broad range of future data field structures and interpretations. - Support for locally defined community structures, and interpretations. - Easy extensibility for a range of future applications. The continuation and expansion of the structure introduced with Extended Communities allows for policy based on the application where the community is being used. The separation of structure and interpretation allows for easier machine and human parsing of community types which do the same thing with slightly different input. This attribute continues the use of the Transitivity community bit, first introduced in the Extended Community Attribute. We also define a set of well-known values for this attribute which can be used to replicate and extend the functionality of the existing well-known community values. The concept of Neighbor Classes is introduced. A Neighbor Class is defined on a BGP peering session. It allows neighbors that share a set of administrative attributes to be easily grouped together. Policy can then be defined through Flexible Communities in reference to these groupings. 2. The BGP Flexible Community Attribute The Flexible Community Attribute is a transitive optional BGP attribute with a Type Code of <TBD>. The attribute consists of a list of "flexible communities." Each Flexible Community is encoded as a variable length quantity. The encoding scheme is: - Transitivity Field: 1 bit - Structure Field: 7 bits - Type Field: 2 octets - Length Field: 1 octet - Value Field: 0-255 octets 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |T| Struct. | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Lange [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 | Value Field (0-255 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 2.1. Transitivity Field: The Transitivity Field is one bit. It can take the following values: Value 0: The community is transitive across ASes Value 1: The community is non-transitive across ASes It is important to note that the transitivity defined by this field is different from the general transitivity of a BGP attribute. A single Flexible Community Attribute, can contain multiple Flexible Communties, each of which may or may not be transitive. If a route originates in an AS with the transitivity bit set, indicating that the community is non-transitive, then that AS MUST NOT propagate that community to its peers. However, if a community with the transitive bit set is applied on an outbound policy expression (eg, a route-map), the community will be conveyed to the immeditely adjacent peer. That peer, in turn, will NOT propagate the community to its peers. The one exception to this is as- confederations. For the purposes of this attribute, confederation boundaries should be treated the same as IBGP. In other words, non-transitive flexible communities should be propagated to other members of the as-confederation, unless overridden by local policy. If the community is transitive, then the Value Field MUST contain the originating ASN. This ASN is encoded as a 4-octet value, occuping the first 4 octets of the Value Field. Two-octet ASN numbers are padded out to 4 octets. Any additional information in the Value Field comes after this origin ASN data. 2.2. Structure Field: The Structure Field's contents modify the Type Field. For example, a Flexible Community which specifies SPECIFIC_NO_EXPORT in its Type Field, can be modified by the contents of the Structure Field to let the receiver know if the list of data on which it must act is a list of 2 octet or 4 octet ASNs. A set of commonly used Structure values is defined later in this document. The Structure field is the latter 7 bits of the first octet. It is split into two sub-fields. 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Lange [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 |T|L| Struct. | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ L - Local bit The Local bit can take two values: Value 0: The Structure is Locally Defined. Value 1: The Structure is Well Known. 2.3. Type Field: The Type Field is two octets. This contents of this field are used to define an action for the recepient to take on the route, or to define and attribute that is related to that route. An example of the former would be a Type which requests that a route be ONLY_EXPORTed to a specific set of peers. An example of the latter woudl be a Type that defines the LINK_BANDWIDTH associated with a certain NLRI. Like the Structure Field the Type Field is split into two Sub- Fields: 1 2 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Local bit can take two values: Value 0: The Type is Locally Defined. Value 1: The Type is Well Known. An implementation MUST allow an operator to filter out entire Types of Flexible Communities from their peering sessions if they so choose. 2.4. Length Field: The Length Field specifies the length, in octets, of the Value Field. Lange [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 3. Locally Defined Structures and Types The Local bit allows the operator of the network to define Structures and Types that are relevant only within that ASN's boundaries. The definition the term "local" used throughout this document is: "A value used by ad hoc agreement or convention outside the scope of standardization, which has meaning only between the parties using the Flexible Community in question." This typically means that the Local value only has meaning within an AS or set of ASes controlled by a single entity. A Locally Defined Structure or Type will have a syntax for interpertation defined on the routers that need to interpret it. If a router receives a community with a Locally Defined Structure or Type that it does not recognize, then it should ignore the contents and process the route based on the information in the route that it does understand. This includes obeying the transitivity bit, in the Flexible Community. If the community is set to non-transitive, even if the router does not understand the rest of the Structure or Type of the community, that community should not be forwarded outside the AS. In order to prevent collisions with other operators' Locally Defined values, Flexible Communities containing Locally Defined Structures or Types MUST be non-transitive (have their Transitivity Field set to 1). 4. Neighbor Classes A Neighbor Class is a value which represents a certain class, or group, of BGP neighbors. Each BGP peering session can be configured with zero or more Neighbor Classes. This value will allow a general classification of what sort of relationship the BGP session represents. With the sort of session defined, it becomes easier to apply policy to only that class of neighbors. Neighbor Classes make the expression of policy through flexible communities much easier. There are a number of examples in the sections on defined values. A Neighbor Class is encoded as a 2-octet value with 2 parts: 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Neighbor Class | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Local bit can take two values: Lange [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 Value 0: The Neighbor Class is Locally Defined. Value 1: The Neighbor Class is Well Known. 4.1. Locally Defined Neighbor Classes If a router receives a Flexible Community containing a Neighbor Class that it does not recognize, then it should ignore the contents and process the route based on the information in the route that it does understand. If the Transitivity Field of the Flexible Community with the Locally Defined Structure or Type is set to 1 (the community is non-transitive) then the router MUST NOT forward the Flexible Community. Similarly, if the Transitivity Field is set to 0 (the community is transitive) the router MUST forward the community along with the NLRI. Using Locally Defined Neighbor Classes an operator could easily define a set that is locally useful. For example, one could say that "31" would be "Asian Public Peers", and "34" would be European Private Peers. A given BGP Neighbor can be part of multiple Neighbor Classes. For example, it could be part of both "PEER", and locally defined "ASIAN" and "PUBLIC PEER" Classes. The logical matching functionality available is left implementation-dependant. However, the default in such as case is logical OR functionality. 4.2. Defined Neighbor Classes This document defines Neighbor Class values for common BGP neighbor groupings: ALL NEIGHBORS This class is the default Neighbor Class for all BGP peers. This class is represented by a value of 0 (0x8000). PEER This class is typically applied to sessions where a transit-free relationship exists between the two providers. This class is represented by a value of 1 (0x8001). CUSTOMER This class is typically applied to sessions where the remote end of Lange [Page 7] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 the session is operated by a customer. This class is represented by a value of 2 (0x8002). UPSTREAM This class is typically applied to sessions where the remote end of the session is operated by a network from which you reveive transit routes. This class is represented by a value of 3 (0x8003). CONFEDERATION PEER This class is typically applied to sessions where the remote end of the session is part of a confederation. This class is represented by a value of 4 (0x8004). 5.0. Defined Flexible BGP Community Structures This section defines a number of Structure values which different Type values can inherit. Summay of the Defined Values: - opaque/variable (0x40 or 0xC0) - list of 2 byte ASN's (0x41 or 0xC1) - list of 4 byte ASN's (0x42 or 0xC2) - list of IPv4 addresses (0x43 or 0xC3) - list of IPv6 addresses (0x44 or OxC4) - list of neighbor_classes (0x45 or 0xC5) Defined Strucuture can be transitive or non-transitive, they are well known. Opaque/Variable Strucure This sort of structure defers interpretation of the community and value field to the Type value. Typically this structure value will be used when the Type value does not have a lot of variations, but rather one structure for the Value Field. This structure is represented by the value 0x00. List of 2 byte ASN's This structure value means that the Type Field's action is qualified by a list of 2 byte ASN's, contained in the Value Field. Lange [Page 8] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 This structure is represented by the value 0x01. List of 4 byte ASN's This structure value means that the Type Field's action is qualified by a list of 4 byte ASN's, contained in the Value Field. This structure is represented by the value 0x02. List of IPv4 Addresses This structure value means that the Type Field's action is qualified by a list of IPv4 addresses, contained in the Value Field. This structure is represented by the value 0x03. List of IPv6 Addresses This structure value means that the Type Field's action is qualified by a list of IPv6 addresses, contained in the Value Field. This structure is represented by the value 0x04. List of Neighbor Classes This structure value means that the Type Field's action is qualified by a list of neighbor classes, contained in the Value Field. This structure is represented by the value 0x05. 6. Base BGP Flexible Community Type (Opaque Type) This section defines the base BGP community specification. Since the root value of communities is the ability to tag a route with arbitrary information, and then create a system to give that information meaning, the base extended community type (type 0), is very simple. This base type could also be described as the "opaque type." All actions can be replicated with a well-thought out, provider dependant, implementation of a scheme using this opaque type. Like all extended commnuities, this type can be transitive or non- transitive. This is a well known type. It can take either 2 or 4 byte ASN structures if it is transitive. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Lange [Page 9] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 | 0x41,0x42,0xC0| 0x0000 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value Field (0-255 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ If the community is transitive, then the Value Field MUST contain the originating ASN. Typically this would be encoded in the first 2 or 4 octets, depending on the structure. 7. Defined Flexible BGP Community Types The Type Field specifies the subgroup that a set of communities belongs to. Typically this subgroup represents an action to be taken on the data. A variety of well-known Type Values follow. 7.1. NO_EXPORT This grouping of well-known communities specify a list of ASNs, Peer IPs, or Neighbor Classes NOT to announce a route to. Name: NO_EXPORT Type Code: 0x0001 Can Take Structures: Ox01 (2 byte ASN) 0x02 (4 byte ASN), 0x03 (IPv4), 0x04 (IPv6) 0x05 (neighbor-class) Transitive: Non-Transitive Min Length of Value Field: 2 octets Max Length of Value Field: 254 octets Behavior: All routes received with this community MUST NOT be advertised to the list of ASNs, Peer IPs, or Neigbor Classes contained in the Value Field. Notes: GLOBAL_NO_EXPORT is accomplished by sending a NO_EXPORT Flexible Community with the Neighbor Class of 0x00 (ALL NEIGHBORS). GLOBAL_NO_EXPORT's NO_EXPORT behavior is defined as: All routes received with this community MUST NOT be advertised outside a BGP confederation boundry (a stand-alone autonomous system that is not part of a confederation should be considered a confederation itself.) [RFC1997] This is analogous to the NO_EXPORT community defined in [RFC1997]. 7.2. ONLY_EXPORT This grouping of well-known communities specify a list of ASNs, Peer IPs, or Neighbor Classes to announce a route to. Lange [Page 10] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 Name: ONLY_EXPORT Type Code: 0x0002 Can Take Strutures: Ox01 (2 byte ASN) 0x02 (4 byte ASN), 0x03 (IPv4), 0x04 (IPv6), 0x05 (neighbor class) Transitive: Non-Transitive Min Length of Value Field: 0 octets Max Length of Value Field: 254 octets Behavior: The Value Field contains a list of ASNs, neighbor IP addresses, or Neighbor Classes to which the route should be advertized. The default behavior of a route carrying this community is the same as the GLOBAL_NO_EXPORT behavior, except for the ASNs, IPs, or Neighbor Classes listed in the Value Field. Notes: This community can be used to replicate the NO_ADVERTISE functionality from [RFC1997]. To do so, simply announce ONLY_EXPORT with a Structure of 0x03 or 0x04 (one of the IP address Structures), but with no IP address in the list. This will tell the receiving router that you wish to ONLY_EXPORT this route to NO peer IPs. This community can also be use to replicate the NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED functionality from [RFC1997]. To do so, simply announce ONLY_EXPORT with a Neighbor Class of CONFEDERATION PEER (4, 0x8004). This will tell the receiving router that you wish to ONLY_EXPORT this route to Confederation Peers. 7.3. ANNOUNCE_WITH This group of well-known communities allows a network to announce a community to an ASN beyond those that it directly peers with, assuming its direct peers allow it to transit the community value. This community group has a lot of flexibility, and could be used to nest another ANNOUNCE_WITH community to gain reach greater than 2 ASN-hops away. If this is a good idea or not is unknown and is left to further study. The only theoretical restriction to the amount of nesting is that the community cannot exceed the maximum size for the Value Field. Since true transitivity can be obtained by simply setting a bit, this community is mainly useful for propegating NO_EXPORT or ONLY_EXPORT (which are non-transitive) to your neighbor's neighbors. In effect, this community, if allowed by the BGP neighbors in the chain, can be used for an originating network to very specifically control the distribution of its routes. This community type does Lange [Page 11] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 contain a LOT of rope, and should be used with care. In the end, though, a mistake should only effect the person origninating the route. Name: ANNOUNCE_WITH Type Code: 0x0003 Can Take Strucures: Ox01 (2 byte ASN) 0x02 (4 byte ASN), 0x03 (IPv4), 0x04 (IPv6), 0x05 (neighbor class) Transitive: Non-Transitive Min Length of Value Field: 8 octets Max Length of Value Field: 254 octets Behavior: This community's Value Field is split into two sections. - The first section is a variable length field that contains the full community value that you wish to announce. - The second section is a variable length field that contains the list of, ASN's, IP addresses, or neighbor_classes you wish to propegate this community to. If you wish to propegate to all peers, use the ALL NEIGHBORS neighbor class. When a router receives this community value, it should strip the ANNOUNCE_WITH community and announce the underlying community value to its neighbor. 7.4. PREPEND This community can be used to ask a BGP peer to prepend its own ASN to its peers. Name: PREPEND Type Code: 0x0004 Can Take Structures: Ox01 (2 byte ASN) 0x02 (4 byte ASN), 0x03 (IPv4), 0x04 (IPv6), 0x05 (neighbor class) Transitive: Non-Transitive Min Length of Value Field: 3 octets Max Length of Value Field: 254 octets Behavior: This community has 2 sections: The first section: Is a one-octet value which specifies the number of times that the ASN should prepend its ASN. It is recomended that operators constrain this value to no more than 3. Implementations MUST offer the ability for an operator to set a maximum bound for this field. The suggested default is also 3. The second section: Contains a list of ASNs, peer IPs, or Neighbor Classes to which Lange [Page 12] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 the originator of this community wishes its peer to prepend its ASN. 7.5. The BGP VPN Communities These communities are used mostly for BGP MPLS VPN's. Please see RFC2547 [RFC2547] for more detail on how these VPNs are constructed. Name: ROUTE_TARGET Type Code: 0x0005 Can Take Structures: 0x03 (IPv4), 0x04 (IPv6) Transitive: Transitive or Non-Transitive Min Length of Value Field: 4 octets Max Length of Value Field: 254 octets Behavior: The Value Field of this community represents a list of the IP addresses where this route is to be announced. Name: ROUTE_ORIGIN Type Code: 0x0006 Can Take Structures: 0x03 (IPv4), 0x04 (IPv6) Transitive: Transitive or Non-Transitive Min Length of Value Field: 4 octets Max Length of Value Field: 16 octets Behavior: The Value Field of this community represents a list of the IP address where this route is originated. This community can only contain one IP address. Name: LINK_BANDWIDTH Type Code: 0x0007 Can Take Structures: 0x00 (opaque), Ox01 (2 byte ASN), 0x02 (4 byte ASN) Transitive: Transitive or Non-Transitive Min Length of Value Field: 4 octets Max Length of Value Field: 6 octets Behavior: This community consists of two parts: The first part represents the bandwidth of the link in bits-per- second, encoded in IEEE floating point format. This part is 4 octets long. The second part consists of a list of ASNs of the peer whose link bandwidth you wish to propegate. This part is either 2 or 4 octets, depending on the community structure. Lange [Page 13] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 8. New Capability Code for Flexible Communities To ensure compatability between implementations that may or may not implement this protocol extention, this document defines a new capability. Capability Code: TBD Capability Length: 1 Capability Value: 0x00 for unsupported 0x01 for supported Capability negotiation is especially important for this attribute because we are creating a transitivity action within an optional, transitive attribute. If an implementation sends a flexible community with the non-transitive bit set within the community to a router that does not support flexible communities, that router will send the community on to its peers when it should not do so. 9. Aggregation Aggregation behaves the same as with other community types. By default if a range of routes is to be aggregated and the resultant aggregates path attributes do not carry the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute, then the resulting aggregate should have an Flexible Com- munities path attribute which contains the set union of all the Flexible Communities from all of the aggregated routes. The default behavior could be overriden via local configuration, in which case handling the Flexible Communities attribute in the presence of route aggregation becomes a matter of the local policy of the BGP speaker that performs the aggregation. 10. Operations Flexible Communities are handled operationally in a manner very similar to other community values. A BGP speaker may use the Flexible Communities attribute to control which routing information it accepts or distributes to its peers. The Flexible Community attribute MUST NOT be used to modify the BGP best path selection algorithm in a way that leads to forwarding loops. A BGP speaker receiving a route that doesn't have the Flexible Commu- nities attribute MAY append this attribute to the route when propa- gating it to its peers. Lange [Page 14] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 A BGP speaker receiving a route with the Flexible Communities attribute MAY modify this attribute according to the local policy. If a route has a non-transitivity extended community, then before advertising the route across the Autonomous system boundary the com- munity SHOULD be removed from the route. However, the community SHOULD NOT be removed when advertising the route across the BGP Con- federation boundary. A route may carry both the BGP Communities attribute as defined in [RFC1997]), the Extended BGP Communities attribute as defined in [EX-COMM], and the Flexible Communities attribute. In this case the BGP Communities attribute is handled as specified in [RFC1997], the Extended BGP Communities attribute is handled as specified in [EX- COMM], and the Flexible Communities attribute is handled as specified in this document. 11. Security Considerations This extention to BGP does not change the underlying security issues. 12. IANA Considerations The values for the Transitivity Field (1 or 0) are completely defined in this document. The assignment policy for the Structure Field is: o The "L" bit's usage is completely defined in this document. o Values of the Structure Field where the "L" bit is "0" are to be assigned in accordance with the Private Use policy outlined in RFC2434 [RFC2434]. o Values of the Structure Field where the "L" bit is "1" defined in this document are: 0-5 (0x40-0x45 and 0xC1-0xC5). Remaining values in this range are to be assigned using the IETF Consensus policy outlined in RFC2434 [RFC2434]. The assignment policy for the Type Field is: o The "L" bit's usage is completely defined in this document. o Values of the Type Field where the "L" bit is "0" are to be assigned in accordance with the Private Use policy outlined in RFC2434 [RFC2434]. o Values of the Type Field where the "L" but is "1" defined in this document are: 0-7 (0x0000-0x0007). Remaining values in this range are to be assigned using the IETF Consensus policy outlined in RFC2434 [RFC2434]. The assignment policy for Neighbor Classes is: o The "L" bit's usage is completely defined in this document. o Values of the Type Field where the "L" bit is "0" are to be Lange [Page 15] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 assigned in accordance with the Private Use policy outlined in RFC2434 [RFC2434]. o Values of the Type Field where the "L" but is "1" defined in this document are: 0-4 (0x8000-0x8004). Remaining values in this range are to be assigned usint the IETF Consensus policy outlined in RFC2434 [RFC2434]. 13. References [RFC1771] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995. [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., Li, T., "BGP Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2434] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998 [RFC2547] Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y., "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547, March 1999. [RFC2842] Chandra, R., Scudder, J., "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 2842, May 2000. [EX-COMM] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., Rekhter, Y., "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-05.txt, work-in-progress, expires November, 2002. [NOPEER] Huston, G., "NOPEER community for BGP route scope control", draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-00.txt, work-in-progress, expires October, 2002. [REDIST] Bonaventure, O., et. al., "Controlling the redistribution of BGP routes", draft-ietf-ptomaine-redistribution-01.txt, work-in- progress, expires February, 2003. 14. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Tom Barron, Dave Ward and especially Hal Peterson for their valuable comments and feedback. 15. Author's Address: Andrew Lange Cable & Wireless 1215 Borregas Ave. Lange [Page 16] INTERNET DRAFT December 2002 Sunnyvale, CA 95050 andrewl@cw.net --DIOMP1UsTsWJauNi-- 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 TAA08249 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:39:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7CF2F9122B; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:39:32 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 48C4D91427; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:39:32 -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 D55C89122B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:39:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B15475DE90; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:39:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C755DE09 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:39:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0O0dT571478 for idr@merit.edu; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:39:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0O0dNC71465 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:39:23 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: Draft 19 - issue #21 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:39:23 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6180B@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft 19 - issue #21 Thread-Index: AcLCP9Y/Dd4BowA5QRKLu5xodLiWqABAO2LA From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>, <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id TAA08249 Tom: thanks for the editing. Could you look at the list of non-consensus issues? Can you help resolve any of these issues by suggesting something? Thanks, Sue -----Original Message----- From: Tom Petch [mailto:nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:53 PM To: Susan Hares; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Draft 19 - issue #21 Sue two minor editorial comments inline Tom Petch -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu> Date: 20 January 2003 19:39 Subject: Draft 19 - issue #21 I will accept the new text for the following total text: Event8: Idle hold timer expires Definition: An event generated when the Idle Hold Timer expires indicating that the session has completed a back-off period to prevent bgp peer oscillation. The Idle Hold Timer is only used when the persistent peer oscillation damping function is enabled. Implementations not implementing the presistent peer ** persistent oscillation damping functions may not have the Idle Hold ** function ** (because we only have function not functions in the previous sentence) Timer. Status: Optional Sue Hares 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 MAA13312 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:59:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 55A589130B; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:14 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B99AC9138C; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:13 -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 C762D9130B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A96DD5DE4E; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:10 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net (shockwave.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F225DDB7 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from tom3 (usermb23.uk.uudial.com [62.188.120.22]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E5061600B540; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:58:08 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <05bf01c2c23f$a1ddefc0$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com>, <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: BGP Draft 19 - Close open items 22 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:55:03 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue minor editorial comment inline Tom Petch -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu> Date: 20 January 2003 19:49 Subject: BGP Draft 19 - Close open items 22 Please consider items 22 closed with the following final text: Optional parameters that may be supported either per connection or per implementation: 1) Delay Open flag 2) Delay Open Timer ** Open Delay timer ** (for which we have consensus in Issue list v2 item 7) 3) Perform automatic start flag 4) Passive TCP establishment flag 5) BGP stop_peer_flag flag 6) Idle Hold timer 7) Perform automatic stop flag 8) Perform Collision detect in Establish mode flag Sue 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 MAA13279 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5546591309; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:11 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2270091388; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:10 -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 ABA2391309 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 81DD05DEBE; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:09 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net (shockwave.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CDA5DDB7 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from tom3 (usermb23.uk.uudial.com [62.188.120.22]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id DF20C1600E5EA; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:58:06 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <05be01c2c23f$a0c9c0a0$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com>, <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: Draft 19 - issue #21 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:52:47 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue two minor editorial comments inline Tom Petch -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu> Date: 20 January 2003 19:39 Subject: Draft 19 - issue #21 I will accept the new text for the following total text: Event8: Idle hold timer expires Definition: An event generated when the Idle Hold Timer expires indicating that the session has completed a back-off period to prevent bgp peer oscillation. The Idle Hold Timer is only used when the persistent peer oscillation damping function is enabled. Implementations not implementing the presistent peer ** persistent oscillation damping functions may not have the Idle Hold ** function ** (because we only have function not functions in the previous sentence) Timer. Status: Optional Sue Hares 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 KAA05244 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:59:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A35049137D; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:59:14 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 643419137E; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:59:14 -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 96CA79137D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:59:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 80BCA5DE8A; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:59:11 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA915DE37 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:59:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0MFx9W24790 for idr@merit.edu; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:59:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0MFwxC24764 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:58:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: BGP-draft-19: Issue 52 - Event 18 in OpenSent State (Keepalive timer set) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:58:59 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617E1@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BGP-draft-19: Issue 52 - Event 18 in OpenSent State (Keepalive timer set) Thread-Index: AcLBvkQGcvWNIHz+QQiha1cje3m8RAAcNTmA From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <curtis@fictitious.org> Cc: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, <siva@ctd.hcltech.com>, <idr@merit.edu>, <ruwhite@cisco.com>, <jgs@cisco.com>, <keyur@cisco.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id KAA05244 Curtis: Yawn is fine. I'll work on text for optional. Thanks, sue -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@fictitious.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:28 PM To: Susan Hares Cc: Jeffrey Haas; siva@ctd.hcltech.com; idr@merit.edu; ruwhite@cisco.com; jgs@cisco.com; keyur@cisco.com Subject: Re: BGP-draft-19: Issue 52 - Event 18 in OpenSent State (Keepalive timer set) In message <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617B2@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.co m>, "Susan Hares" writes: > > Jeff and Siva: > > > I need to hear from additional implementers > on the following. Would you both check your > implementations? > > Sue Hares Yawn... [not what you wanted to hear?] > ------------- > > > Issue 52 - > status: non-consensus > > <---- Open [Open sent state] > open ----> > [Event 18 in Open Sent > <----- Keepalive > > Event 18: > - clears BGP delay timer > - resets BGP connect timer > - sends Keepalive message > - if negotiated hold timer is zero, > o reset keepalive timer, > o reset hold timer. > > - if negotiated hold timer is non-zero > o set keepalive timer, > o set hold timer to negotiated value. > > > Here the question is, do you want to send a 2nd > keepalive if the keepalive timer expires in > Open Confirm. > > The current draft allows this until the hold timer > expires. The sequence would be: > > > The current draft allows this until the hold timer > expires. The sequence would be: > > <---- open [open sent] > open --> [event 18] > > <-----keepalive > > [keepalive timeout [Event 11] > <---- Keepalive > > [Keepalive time out [Event 11] > <--- Keepalive > > [hold time-out, Event 10] > <---Notification > drop TCP connection > > Please confirm that you want to remove these subsequent keepalives in > Open Confirm. > > > Sue Make it optional. Timing out in open or open-sent has never been much of an issue, so whether one or three keepalive get sent shouldn't be a hot topic. Curtis 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 BAA27936 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id C127291206; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:48:50 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9122E91271; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:48:50 -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 8895F91206 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:47:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6AAE75DDCA; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:47:53 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from web20307.mail.yahoo.com (web20307.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.88]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 115E45DD91 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:47:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030122064752.82302.qmail@web20307.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.200.20.226] by web20307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:47:52 PST Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:47:52 -0800 (PST) From: Mareline Sheldon <marelines@yahoo.com> Subject: Multiple SNPAs -- When? To: idr@merit.edu Cc: dkatz@juniper.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hello, I have a doubt in MPBGP. Can anyone give me an example of a scenario when a speaker will be advertising multiple SNPAs for an entity. warm regards, mareline s. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com 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 VAA13320 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:40:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 196979136C; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:40:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DE9959136D; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:40:29 -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 924AC9136C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:40:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 74DF65DE87; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:40:28 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB20C5DE83 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:40:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA62527; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:38:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200301220238.VAA62527@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: issue 18 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:44:36 PST." <200301211644.h0LGiaS72117@merlot.juniper.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:38:10 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <200301211644.h0LGiaS72117@merlot.juniper.net>, Yakov Rekhter writes : > > Here is the text that will go in the next version of the draft: > > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC > attribute MAY be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. > This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the > MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute is then > removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and > which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with > IBGP learned routes. > > Yakov. Looks good to me. I see no need to change "This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute". There is no implication that MULTI_EXIT_DISC must be removed and the first sentence clearly indicates that doing so is not required therefore no ambiguity. Adding a "If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed" to the second sentence would be redundant. Curtis 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 VAA12769 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:32:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E57A79136A; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:31:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6E8EB9136D; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:31:34 -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 D5E699136A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:31:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1D7FA5DDE9; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:30:56 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64555DE41 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:30:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA62398; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:28:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200301220228.VAA62398@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> Cc: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, siva@ctd.hcltech.com, idr@merit.edu, ruwhite@cisco.com, jgs@cisco.com, keyur@cisco.com Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: BGP-draft-19: Issue 52 - Event 18 in OpenSent State (Keepalive timer set) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:26 EST." <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617B2@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:28:28 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617B2@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.co m>, "Susan Hares" writes: > > Jeff and Siva: > > > I need to hear from additional implementers > on the following. Would you both check your > implementations? > > Sue Hares Yawn... [not what you wanted to hear?] > ------------- > > > Issue 52 - > status: non-consensus > > <---- Open [Open sent state] > open ----> > [Event 18 in Open Sent > <----- Keepalive > > Event 18: > - clears BGP delay timer > - resets BGP connect timer > - sends Keepalive message > - if negotiated hold timer is zero, > o reset keepalive timer, > o reset hold timer. > > - if negotiated hold timer is non-zero > o set keepalive timer, > o set hold timer to negotiated value. > > > Here the question is, do you want to send a 2nd > keepalive if the keepalive timer expires in > Open Confirm. > > The current draft allows this until the hold timer > expires. The sequence would be: > > > The current draft allows this until the hold timer > expires. The sequence would be: > > <---- open [open sent] > open --> [event 18] > > <-----keepalive > > [keepalive timeout [Event 11] > <---- Keepalive > > [Keepalive time out [Event 11] > <--- Keepalive > > [hold time-out, Event 10] > <---Notification > drop TCP connection > > Please confirm that you want to remove these subsequent keepalives in > Open Confirm. > > > Sue Make it optional. Timing out in open or open-sent has never been much of an issue, so whether one or three keepalive get sent shouldn't be a hot topic. Curtis 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 SAA01722 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:25:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3649791371; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:22:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 055AF91367; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:22:15 -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 8859991371 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6E1FC5E0A3; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:21:45 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6BA5DDEC for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:21:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0LNLhf99954 for idr@merit.edu; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:21:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0LNLZC99935 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:21:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:21:34 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617D1@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48 Thread-Index: AcLBmoxW5Aw0pe7JRSmKYsjhPGRm8gACUMEg From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> Cc: <siva@ctd.hcltech.com>, <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id SAA01722 Andrew: Looks great! Thanks. sue -----Original Message----- From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net [mailto:andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:12 PM To: Susan Hares Cc: siva@ctd.hcltech.com; idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48 Hi Sue, Responses are inline. > Andrew and Siva: > > summary: > consensus: 34, 35, 43.47 > possible consensus: 41,44 > no consensus, discussion needed: 40, 42, 48, 54 > > > ----------- > > Issue 34 - > > I think that Siva and I have consensus on issue 34. > I changed the text to "fails" based on other comments. Done. > Issue 35 - I accept Siva's changes, please mark > this as consensus. Done. > Issue 40 - Clearing of the Connection Retry timer > > We need to discuss our two points of view > here. This should be marked as no consensus Already at No Consensus in 2.1: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40) Clearing the Connection Retry Timer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Do we remove the redundant resets from the text? Or leave them to allow action routines to be shared across multiple states? > Issues 41 - > question: Connect state, event 14 - will this happen? > > My resolution: Let event 14 be optional. > Not all BGP implementations support it. > > Siva - Does this let us reach consensus? Updated this issue, waiting Siva's response. > Issue 42 - Handling events 20, 21 in Connect and Active states > > state: non-consensus > > I suggest we don't send a "NOTIFICATION" when > Event 20 or Event 21 is received in Conect or Active state. Updated the issue. > Issue 43: > > state: consensus > focus: editorial > I'll accept the text change from Siva with small editorial > modification below. > > old text: > -resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero) > - clears the open delay timer > > new text: > - if the connect retry timer is running, > clear the connect retry timer (set to zero). > if the open delay timer is running, > clear the open delay timer (set to zero). > > Siva - please confirm that this change is acceptable for > the default case. Since you've substantively accepted Siva's suggestion, I'll put this at consensus, unless someone wants to reopen it. > Issue 44 > > Please reply if you have additional concerns, otherwise > we will leave the text alone. Sicne there have been on objections, I'll move this to consensus. We can reopen it if it is still an issue. > Issue 45 > status: change to consensus > > I'll agree with Jeff, Tom and you. Please consider this > item in consensus. I'll change the text. Done. > Issue 47 - Event 19 in Active state > status: change to consensus > > New text > > - if the hold timer value is non-zero, > - starts the keepalive timer to initial value, > - resets the hold timer to the negotiated value, > - else if the hold timer is zero > - resets the keepalive timer (set to zero), > - resets the hold timer to zero. This seems to address Siva's concerns, this issue is at consensus, if there are objections, we can reopen it. > Issue 48 - > status: non-consensus > > do you have any further comments. If not, I'll leave > the text as: > > state. > > A manual stop event[Event2], the local system: > - Sends a NOTIFICATION with a Cease, > - releases all BGP resources including > - stopping the OPen delay timer > - drops the TCP connection, > - sets ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) to zero > - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), > - changes its state to Idle. Updated the issue. > Issue 52 - > status: non-consensus > > <---- Open [Open sent state] > open ----> > [Event 18 in Open Sent > <----- Keepalive > > Event 18: > - clears BGP delay timer > - resets BGP connect timer > - sends Keepalive message > - if negotiated hold timer is zero, > o reset keepalive timer, > o reset hold timer. > > - if negotiated hold timer is non-zero > o set keepalive timer, > o set hold timer to negotiated value. > > > Here the question is, do you want to send a 2nd > keepalive if the keepalive timer expires in > Open Confirm. > > The current draft allows this until the hold timer > expires. The sequence would be: > > <---- open [open sent] > open --> [event 18] > > <-----keepalive > > [keepalive timeout [Event 11] > <---- Keepalive > > [Keepalive time out [Event 11] > <--- Keepalive > > [hold time-out, Event 10] > <---Notification > drop TCP connection I think we're waiting for more implementor's responses on this one. Andrew 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 RAA27469 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E04FD9135A; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:15:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 6E53A9135D; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:15:15 -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 8D8619135A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:15:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5425A5E0A3; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:15:10 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8E85E05A for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:15:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA14392; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:11:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:11:59 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> Cc: siva@ctd.hcltech.com, idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48 Message-ID: <20030121141159.D12154@demiurge.exodus.net> References: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617B3@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617B3@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com>; from shares@nexthop.com on Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 10:47:12AM -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi Sue, Responses are inline. > Andrew and Siva: > > summary: > consensus: 34, 35, 43.47 > possible consensus: 41,44 > no consensus, discussion needed: 40, 42, 48, 54 > > > ----------- > > Issue 34 - > > I think that Siva and I have consensus on issue 34. > I changed the text to "fails" based on other comments. Done. > Issue 35 - I accept Siva's changes, please mark > this as consensus. Done. > Issue 40 - Clearing of the Connection Retry timer > > We need to discuss our two points of view > here. This should be marked as no consensus Already at No Consensus in 2.1: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40) Clearing the Connection Retry Timer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Do we remove the redundant resets from the text? Or leave them to allow action routines to be shared across multiple states? > Issues 41 - > question: Connect state, event 14 - will this happen? > > My resolution: Let event 14 be optional. > Not all BGP implementations support it. > > Siva - Does this let us reach consensus? Updated this issue, waiting Siva's response. > Issue 42 - Handling events 20, 21 in Connect and Active states > > state: non-consensus > > I suggest we don't send a "NOTIFICATION" when > Event 20 or Event 21 is received in Conect or Active state. Updated the issue. > Issue 43: > > state: consensus > focus: editorial > I'll accept the text change from Siva with small editorial > modification below. > > old text: > -resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero) > - clears the open delay timer > > new text: > - if the connect retry timer is running, > clear the connect retry timer (set to zero). > if the open delay timer is running, > clear the open delay timer (set to zero). > > Siva - please confirm that this change is acceptable for > the default case. Since you've substantively accepted Siva's suggestion, I'll put this at consensus, unless someone wants to reopen it. > Issue 44 > > Please reply if you have additional concerns, otherwise > we will leave the text alone. Sicne there have been on objections, I'll move this to consensus. We can reopen it if it is still an issue. > Issue 45 > status: change to consensus > > I'll agree with Jeff, Tom and you. Please consider this > item in consensus. I'll change the text. Done. > Issue 47 - Event 19 in Active state > status: change to consensus > > New text > > - if the hold timer value is non-zero, > - starts the keepalive timer to initial value, > - resets the hold timer to the negotiated value, > - else if the hold timer is zero > - resets the keepalive timer (set to zero), > - resets the hold timer to zero. This seems to address Siva's concerns, this issue is at consensus, if there are objections, we can reopen it. > Issue 48 - > status: non-consensus > > do you have any further comments. If not, I'll leave > the text as: > > state. > > A manual stop event[Event2], the local system: > - Sends a NOTIFICATION with a Cease, > - releases all BGP resources including > - stopping the OPen delay timer > - drops the TCP connection, > - sets ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) to zero > - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), > - changes its state to Idle. Updated the issue. > Issue 52 - > status: non-consensus > > <---- Open [Open sent state] > open ----> > [Event 18 in Open Sent > <----- Keepalive > > Event 18: > - clears BGP delay timer > - resets BGP connect timer > - sends Keepalive message > - if negotiated hold timer is zero, > o reset keepalive timer, > o reset hold timer. > > - if negotiated hold timer is non-zero > o set keepalive timer, > o set hold timer to negotiated value. > > > Here the question is, do you want to send a 2nd > keepalive if the keepalive timer expires in > Open Confirm. > > The current draft allows this until the hold timer > expires. The sequence would be: > > <---- open [open sent] > open --> [event 18] > > <-----keepalive > > [keepalive timeout [Event 11] > <---- Keepalive > > [Keepalive time out [Event 11] > <--- Keepalive > > [hold time-out, Event 10] > <---Notification > drop TCP connection I think we're waiting for more implementor's responses on this one. Andrew 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 NAA12208 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:04:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3A94D9134B; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:04:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id B2EE1912C4; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:04:34 -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 78BA39134A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:02:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 52EBA5DE55; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:02:40 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20BC5DE13 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:02:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0LI2be88224 for idr@merit.edu; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:02:37 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: from paradigm.nexthop.com (mrichardson.nexthop.com [64.211.218.45]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0LI2YC88217 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:02:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mrr@mrichardson.nexthop.com) Received: (from mrr@localhost) by paradigm.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0LI2Yg12390 for idr@merit.edu; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:02:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:02:34 -0500 From: Mathew Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 18 Message-ID: <20030121180234.GA11790@nexthop.com> References: <200301211644.h0LGiaS72117@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200301211644.h0LGiaS72117@merlot.juniper.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> [Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:44:36AM -0800]: <snip> I think this new text is ambiguous. >Here is the text that will go in the next version of the draft: > > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC > attribute MAY be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. This could be taken to mean either that the comparison may be performed, and if it's performed it must be performed only between EBGP learned routes, or that the comparison must be performed, but it may be performed only between EBGP learned routes. > This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the > MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If doing the comparison is optional, then I think that this sentence should read "If the comparsion is performed, then it MUST be perfo..." > The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute is then > removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and > which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with > IBGP learned routes. <snip> I think that it is desirable for an operator to be able to turn off MED processing entirely (including turning off all MED based comparisons), so I would suggest the following text: If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, comparison based on the received MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY be performed. If an implementation chooses to perform this comparison, then the comparison MUST be performed only among EBGP learned routes, and it MUST be performed before the removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. mrr 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 MAA09695 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:20:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 772EE91345; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:19:34 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 381AF91348; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:19:34 -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 442A291345 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:17:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1C8125DDB8; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:17:09 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD215DD99 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:17:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0LHH7S74632; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:17:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200301211717.h0LHH7S74632@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 17 - final resolution In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:04:48 EST." <20030121120448.A19460@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23693.1043169427.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:17:07 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:58:19AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > The current text is just fine. Since the definition of "BGP speaker" > > makes it quite clear that in the context of this document it means > > a router, and *not* a non-routing host implementing BGP, it follows > > that the issue of non-routing hosts implementing BGP is outside > > the document. > > > > If there is a sufficient interest to document the issues related > > to non-routing hosts implementing BGP (including interaction between > > these hosts and routers), then this should be done in a separate document. > > Normalize the text to read "BGP Speaker" in the few remaining places > it says router, leave the current definition of BGP Speaker and > I yield. Accepted. Yakov. 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 MAA08844 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:05:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A15BE9133F; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:04:55 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 687A091341; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:04:55 -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 56CDC9133F for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:04:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3D4365DDBF; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:04:54 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E235DD99 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:04:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0LH4q486254; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:04:52 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0LH4mC86247; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:04:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h0LH4mI00153; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:04:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:04:48 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: issue 17 - final resolution Message-ID: <20030121120448.A19460@nexthop.com> References: <200301211658.h0LGwJS72949@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200301211658.h0LGwJS72949@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:58:19AM -0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:58:19AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > The current text is just fine. Since the definition of "BGP speaker" > makes it quite clear that in the context of this document it means > a router, and *not* a non-routing host implementing BGP, it follows > that the issue of non-routing hosts implementing BGP is outside > the document. > > If there is a sufficient interest to document the issues related > to non-routing hosts implementing BGP (including interaction between > these hosts and routers), then this should be done in a separate document. Normalize the text to read "BGP Speaker" in the few remaining places it says router, leave the current definition of BGP Speaker and I yield. > Yakov. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 LAA08462 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7595E9133C; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3A9709133E; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:25 -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 E275A9133C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C8C255E00F; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:19 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B765DDBF for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:58:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0LGwJS72949 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:58:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200301211658.h0LGwJS72949@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 17 - final resolution MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <18442.1043168299.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:58:19 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: Do existing vendors rely on this, or no? If no, remove it. > > Discussion: > > This issue was spawned from the discussions in issue 16, specifically: > > Anonymous reviwer: > > > Section 3, page 8, para 3 - "The hosts executing..." This paragraph > > seems obsolete. > > Yakov: > > I'll take it out. > > With regard to this, Siva asked if some route optimizaiton vendors rely on > this. > > Jeff replied: > > To provide context, this paragraph currently reads: > > : The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host > : could exchange routing information with routers via EGP [RFC904] or > : even an interior routing protocol. That non-routing host could then > : use BGP to exchange routing information with a border router in > : another Autonomous System. The implications and applications of this > : architecture are for further study. > > There are several deployed entities that could be considered to "exploit" > this paragraph. Route collectors, route servers, bandwidth shapers > and other optimizers. However, the original text may be showing its > age a little bit. > > Perhaps the following might be a bit more appropriate: > > "The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host may > exchange routing information with a BGP speaker for reasons > that are outside the scope of this document." > > I would also propose adding to the same paragraph (but could be persuaded > to drop it since it is *logically* redundant): > "These non-routing hosts should exercise great care not to insert > themselves into the forwarding path if they re-announce BGP routes." > > Yakov replied: > > Since operations of non-routing host are outside the scope of the > document, and since the document doesn't preclude non-routing hosts > to run BGP, I would prefer just to take the following paragraph out, > and not to add any new text. > > The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host > could exchange routing information with routers via EGP [RFC904] or > even an interior routing protocol. That non-routing host could then > use BGP to exchange routing information with a border router in > another Autonomous System. The implications and applications of this > architecture are for further study. > > Jeff replied that this was ok, and instead suggested: > > At the beginning of the document, we define: > BGP speaker > A router that implements BGP. > > This (potentially) restricts a speaker to being a router. > Additionally, several spots in the text where we probably should > say "BGP speaker", we use router. > > Yakov agreed to add this definition. > > Jeff replied that there still was a problem with this definition being > too limiting. The discussion meandered off list for a couple of > exchanges and these additional definitions were proposed: > > First Jeff proposed this: > > "A router that implements the BGP protocol. > Non-routing hosts that also implement BGP are out of scope of this > document." > > Then Andrew replied, that we should make sure the definition does not > opt out entirely from making sure that non-routing hosts are interoperable: > > BGP Speaker > A router that implements the BGP protocol. The internal behavior of > non-routing hosts that also implement BGP are out of scope of this > document. However, in their interactions with routers, non-routing hosts > must behave as if they were routers. > > And Jeff replied: > > BGP Speaker > A router that implements the BGP protocol. The internal behavior of > non-routing hosts that also implement BGP are out of scope of this > document. However, in their interactions with BGP speaking routers, > non-routing hosts that implement BGP should be indistinguishable from > a router on the wire. > > (or something like that - s/on the wire/ with whatever sounds best.) > > IOW, look like bgp on the wire - what you do internally is out of scope. > > This was discussed in the "proxy: more comments on draft -18" thread. > And in the "Issues list, #17: Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete?" > thread. The current text is just fine. Since the definition of "BGP speaker" makes it quite clear that in the context of this document it means a router, and *not* a non-routing host implementing BGP, it follows that the issue of non-routing hosts implementing BGP is outside the document. If there is a sufficient interest to document the issues related to non-routing hosts implementing BGP (including interaction between these hosts and routers), then this should be done in a separate document. Yakov. 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 LAA07728 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:45:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DC08091339; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:44:38 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A31DC9133A; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:44:38 -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 64D2F91339 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:44:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 447145E078; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:44:37 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848EF5DDBF for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:44:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0LGiaS72117 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:44:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200301211644.h0LGiaS72117@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: issue 18 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <14580.1043167476.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:44:36 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > 18) MED Removal Text > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: Select new text from the options below. > > Discussion: > > This issue is spawned from issue 16. > > An anonymous reviewer pointed out: > > > Section 9.1.2.2, page 63, paragraph starting "If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC > > attribute is removed before..." The first sentence is pretty nearly > > incomprehensible. > > Yakov replied: > > here is my attempt to clarify this: > > If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > route into IBGP, then (prior to the removal) the MULTI_EXIT_DISC > attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned > routes; the attribute is then removed, and then the remaining EBGP > learned routes may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, > without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP > learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute will be removed > before advertising these routes to IBGP. > > Any further suggestions on how to improve this would be appreciated. > > Siva replied: > > How about this: > > % If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a > % route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC > % attribute may (MUST?) be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. > % This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the > % MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute must then > % be removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and > % which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with IBGP > % learned routes. > > I think this reflects our objectives, which is: > > a) If MED is to be removed, compare EBGP routes based on the MED > > b) Then remove the MED > > c) Then do comparison with IBGP routes > > Andrew suggested: > > If a router is configured to remove a MUTLI_EXIT_DISC attribute from > a route learned from EBGP, before readvertising it into IBGP the > router MUST compare the route with other EBGP-learned routes before > removing the MULTI_EXIT_DISC. Once this comparison is complete, > the MED may be removed, and any remaining routes can be compared with > IBGP routes to determine the best route. Here is the text that will go in the next version of the draft: If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute is then removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with IBGP learned routes. Yakov. 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 KAA04875 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:49:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 88C6791331; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:49:28 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5A0AC91330; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:49:28 -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 BDE4191331 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:47:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9F07C5DDDE; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:47:21 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9C35DDB8 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:47:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0LFlKR84135 for idr@merit.edu; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:47:20 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0LFlCC84114 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:47:12 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:47:12 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617B3@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BGP-19: Issue 34-35, 40-48 Thread-Index: AcLBZF1VXAtaPbRNQAe4W6+zjJe5ew== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id KAA04875 Andrew and Siva: summary: consensus: 34, 35, 43.47 possible consensus: 41,44 no consensus, discussion needed: 40, 42, 48, 54 ----------- Issue 34 - I think that Siva and I have consensus on issue 34. I changed the text to "fails" based on other comments. Issue 35 - I accept Siva's changes, please mark this as consensus. Issue 40 - Clearing of the Connection Retry timer We need to discuss our two points of view here. This should be marked as no consensus Issues 41 - question: Connect state, event 14 - will this happen? My resolution: Let event 14 be optional. Not all BGP implementations support it. Siva - Does this let us reach consensus? Issue 42 - Handling events 20, 21 in Connect and Active states state: non-consensus I suggest we don't send a "NOTIFICATION" when Event 20 or Event 21 is received in Conect or Active state. Issue 43: state: consensus focus: editorial I'll accept the text change from Siva with small editorial modification below. old text: -resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero) - clears the open delay timer new text: - if the connect retry timer is running, clear the connect retry timer (set to zero). if the open delay timer is running, clear the open delay timer (set to zero). Siva - please confirm that this change is acceptable for the default case. Issue 44 Please reply if you have additional concerns, otherwise we will leave the text alone. Issue 45 status: change to consensus I'll agree with Jeff, Tom and you. Please consider this item in consensus. I'll change the text. Issue 47 - Event 19 in Active state status: change to consensus New text - if the hold timer value is non-zero, - starts the keepalive timer to initial value, - resets the hold timer to the negotiated value, - else if the hold timer is zero - resets the keepalive timer (set to zero), - resets the hold timer to zero. Issue 48 - status: non-consensus do you have any further comments. If not, I'll leave the text as: state. A manual stop event[Event2], the local system: - Sends a NOTIFICATION with a Cease, - releases all BGP resources including - stopping the OPen delay timer - drops the TCP connection, - sets ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) to zero - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), - changes its state to Idle. Issue 52 - status: non-consensus <---- Open [Open sent state] open ----> [Event 18 in Open Sent <----- Keepalive Event 18: - clears BGP delay timer - resets BGP connect timer - sends Keepalive message - if negotiated hold timer is zero, o reset keepalive timer, o reset hold timer. - if negotiated hold timer is non-zero o set keepalive timer, o set hold timer to negotiated value. Here the question is, do you want to send a 2nd keepalive if the keepalive timer expires in Open Confirm. The current draft allows this until the hold timer expires. The sequence would be: <---- open [open sent] open --> [event 18] <-----keepalive [keepalive timeout [Event 11] <---- Keepalive [Keepalive time out [Event 11] <--- Keepalive [hold time-out, Event 10] <---Notification drop TCP connection 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 KAA04741 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D5D9F912CF; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:39 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7D7C291330; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:39 -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 6D689912CF for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id F02CA5DDE8; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90ADC5DDB8 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0LFkZk84047 for idr@merit.edu; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0LFkQC84025 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: BGP-draft-19: Issue 52 - Event 18 in OpenSent State (Keepalive timer set) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:26 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617B2@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BGP-draft-19: Issue 52 - Event 18 in OpenSent State (Keepalive timer set) Thread-Index: AcLBZEGcVLqit3RtQBSHDdpvL99E8A== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@nexthop.com>, <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu>, <ruwhite@cisco.com>, <jgs@cisco.com>, <keyur@cisco.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id KAA04741 Jeff and Siva: I need to hear from additional implementers on the following. Would you both check your implementations? Sue Hares ------------- Issue 52 - status: non-consensus <---- Open [Open sent state] open ----> [Event 18 in Open Sent <----- Keepalive Event 18: - clears BGP delay timer - resets BGP connect timer - sends Keepalive message - if negotiated hold timer is zero, o reset keepalive timer, o reset hold timer. - if negotiated hold timer is non-zero o set keepalive timer, o set hold timer to negotiated value. Here the question is, do you want to send a 2nd keepalive if the keepalive timer expires in Open Confirm. The current draft allows this until the hold timer expires. The sequence would be: The current draft allows this until the hold timer expires. The sequence would be: <---- open [open sent] open --> [event 18] <-----keepalive [keepalive timeout [Event 11] <---- Keepalive [Keepalive time out [Event 11] <--- Keepalive [hold time-out, Event 10] <---Notification drop TCP connection Please confirm that you want to remove these subsequent keepalives in Open Confirm. Sue 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 UAA28302 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5BC44912B4; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:04:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 02D63912B5; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:04:23 -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 14E3F912B4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:04:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DE5305DF7D; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:04:12 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508DA5DF31 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:04:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA29098; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:01:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:01:14 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: idr@merit.edu Cc: andrewl@cw.net Subject: BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.1 (Draft-19) Message-ID: <20030120170114.F24846@demiurge.exodus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Attaches is version 2.1 of the issues list. Since our last iteration, we have updated 13 issues, and reached consensus on 4. We're close on 3 more (13.2, 13.4 and 13.6). We have 22 issue remaining to clear up. Andrew --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Issue_List-v2.1.txt" 2003-01-20 v2.1 This is version 2.1 of this list. All the 2.x versions pertain to draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt. The revisions discussed here are targeted to be incorporated into the -19 version of this document. Since late August 2002, there has been a push to get any and all issues with the base spec. resolved so the IDR group can move this draft forward to the IESG. This is a list of the issues that have been brought up regarding the base draft, and the current working group consensus on them. All mistakes are mine, please email me at andrewl@cw.net with corrections. Please include the number and the title of the issue in the subject lines of email discussing that issue. It will help in keeping track. N.B. There is no rhyme or reason to the numbering scheme other than unique tags to address the issues. ============================================================================ Table of Contents ============================================================================ 1) Reference to RFC 1772 2) MUST/SHOULD Capitalization 3) Fix Update Error Subcode 7 -- accidently removed. 4) Section 5.1.4 - Editoral Comment 5) Section 9.1 - Change "all peers" to "peers" 6) AS Loop Detection & Implicit Withdraws 7) Standardize FSM Timer Descriptions 8) FSM MIB enumerations 9) Make "delete routes" language consistant 10) Correct OpenSent and OpenConfirm delete wording 11) Incorrect next state when the delay open timer expires. 12) Entering OpenConfirm / Adding "Stop OpenDelay" action 13) FSM Missing Next States 13.1) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Connect State) 13.2) FSM Missing Next States - Event 14 (Connect State) 13.3) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Active State) 13.4) FSM Missing Next States - Event 13-17 (TCP Connection) 13.5) FSM Missing Next States - Event 17 (Connect State) 13.6) FSM Missing Next States - Event 18 (Open Confirm) 14) FSM - Peer Oscillation Damping 15) FSM - Consistant FSM Event Names 16) Many Editorial Comments 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? 18) MED Removal Text 19) Security Considerations 20) Peer Oscillation Damping 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) 23) Event1/Event2 Clean Up 24) Events 3, 5, 6 & 7 Give Examples 25) Event 4 & 5 Session Initiation Text 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option 27) Event 5 Clarification 28) Timer Events Definition - Make Consistant 29) Event 8 - Clean Up 30) Hold Timer - Split? 31) OpenDelay Timer Definition 32) Definition of TCP Connection Accept (Event 13) 33) Event 13 & 14 - Valid Addresses & Ports 34) Event 17 - TCP Connection Fails to TCP Connection Termination 35) Making Definition Style Consistant 36) Event 19 - Definition Cleanup 37) Event 22 - Cleanup 38) FSM Description - ConnectRetry Count 39) Handling Event 7 (Auto Stop) to Idle State processing 40) Clearing the Connection Retry Timer 41) Handling of Event 14 in the Connect State 42) Handling events 20, 21 in the Connect State and Active State 43) Handling the default events in the Connect state 44) Handling Event 23 in Connect and OpenSent 45) Event 17 in the Connect state 46) Handling of Event 17 in Active state 47) Handling of Event 19 in Active state 48) Handling of Event 2 in Active state 49) Default Event handling in Active state 50) Clearing Hold timer in OpenSent, OpenConfirm and Established State 51) Clearing Keepalive timer in OpenConfirm and Established State 52) Handling Event 18 in the OpenSent state (Keepalive Timer) 53) Established State MIB 54) State impact of not supporting Optional Events 55) New DelayOpen State ============================================================================ Issues with Consensus ============================================================================ 1) Reference to RFC 1772 2) MUST/SHOULD Capitalization 3) Fix Update Error Subcode 7 -- accidently removed. 4) Section 5.1.4 - Editoral Comment 5) Section 9.1 - Change "all peers" to "peers" 6) AS Loop Detection & Implicit Withdraws 7) Standardize FSM Timer Descriptions 8) FSM MIB enumerations 9) Make "delete routes" language consistant 10) Correct OpenSent and OpenConfirm delete wording 11) Incorrect next state when the delay open timer expires. 13.1) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Connect State) 13.3) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Active State) 13.5) FSM Missing Next States - Event 17 (Connect State) 14) FSM - Peer Oscillation Damping 15) FSM - Consistent FSM Event Names 16) Many Editorial Comments 19) Security Considerations 20) Peer Oscillation Damping 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) 23) Event1/Event2 Clean Up 25) Event 4 & 5 Session Initiation Text 27) Event 5 Clarification 28) Timer Events Definition - Make Consistant 29) Event 8 - Clean Up 30) Hold Timer - Split? 31) OpenDelay Timer Definition 32) Definition of TCP Connection Accept (Event 13) 36) Event 19 - Definition Cleanup 37) Event 22 - Cleanup 38) FSM Description - ConnectRetry Count 39) Handling Event 7 (Auto Stop) to Idle State processing 46) Handling of Event 17 in Active state 49) Default Event handling in Active state 50) Clearing Hold timer in OpenSent, OpenConfirm and Established State 51) Clearing Keepalive timer in OpenConfirm and Established State 53) Established State MIB 55) New DelayOpen State ============================================================================ Issues WITHOUT Consensus ============================================================================ 12) Entering OpenConfirm / Adding "Stop OpenDelay" action 13) FSM Missing Next States 13.2) FSM Missing Next States - Event 14 (Connect State) 13.4) FSM Missing Next States - Event 13-17 (TCP Connection) 13.6) FSM Missing Next States - Event 18 (Open Confirm) 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? 18) MED Removal Text 24) Events 3, 5, 6 & 7 Give Examples 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option 33) Event 13 & 14 - Valid Addresses & Ports 34) Event 17 - TCP Connection Fails to TCP Connection Termination 35) Making Definition Style Consistant 40) Clearing the Connection Retry Timer 41) Handling of Event 14 in the Connect State 42) Handling events 20, 21 in the Connect State and Active State 43) Handling the default events in the Connect state 44) Handling Event 23 in Connect and OpenSent 45) Event 17 in the Connect state 47) Handling of Event 19 in Active state 48) Handling of Event 2 in Active state 52) Handling Event 18 in the OpenSent state (Keepalive Timer) 54) State impact of not supporting Optional Events ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Reference to RFC 1772 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Proposed changing RFC 1772 reference, since that document should be updated. Discussion: Jeff proposed that we reconsider referencing RFC 1772, since that document should be updated. Yakov pointed out that this is a non-normative reference and can just be left as is. Jeff agreed that this wasn't a big deal. We are at consensus to leave things as they are. This was discussed in the "-18 last call comments" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) MUST/SHOULD Capitalization ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Capitalize MUST/SHOULD where appropate. Discussion: Jeff brought this up, and Yakov reponded asking that he point out specific instances where this is needed. Jeff said he would do so, given some time. Yakov later replied that this would be fixed in the -19 version. Jeff replied with a master diff showing the MUST/SHOULDs, for the entire document please see the beginning of the thread entitled: "Issues list, #2: MUST/SHOULD Capitalization" This was discussed in the "18 last call comments" thread. This was also brought up in the "proxy: comments on draft -18" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Fix Update Error Subcode 7 -- accidently removed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add error subcode 7 back in, it looks like it was inadvertently removed. Add deprication text to Open Message Error subcode 5. Discussion: Jeff supplied: Update message error subcode 7 is removed. Especially in -18, it looks like an editing mistake based on where it would fall in the editing.. Yakov mentioned that this is addressed in Appendix A. Jeff replied: What I would like to see is something like this: 6 - Invalid ORIGIN Attribute 7 - [Deprecated - See Appendix A] 8 - Invalid NEXT_HOP Attribute As it stands, 7 lies on a page boundary and looks like it got clipped by the roff. Yakov agreed, and also said he would add similar text for Open Message Error subcode 5. This was discussed in the "18 last call comments" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Section 5.1.4 - Editoral Comment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix "restricts" to "RESTRICTIONS" Discussion: Jeff proposed an editorial fix. This is agreed to. This was discussed in the "-18 last call comments" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Section 9.1 - Change "all peers" to "peers" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Section 9.1 - Change "all peers" to "peers" Discussion: Jeff proposed: 9.1: The output of the Decision Process is the set of routes that will be advertised to (delete all) peers; the selected routes will be stored in the local speaker's Adj-RIB-Out according to policy. The previous wording implied that routes in the LocRib MUST be placed in the adj-rib-out. Yakov agreed, this fix will be in the next revision. This was discussed in the "-18 last call comments" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) AS Loop Detection & Implicit Withdraws ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Update the text to reflect the AS Loop detection should be done in the BGP decision process. Discussion: John brought this up, and suggested: I have one further comment just in case it's not perfectly obvious to everyone, which is that "ignore the UPDATE" is not strictly the action you take when receiving a looped update. Rather, you treat it as an implicit withdraw, i.e. you process it as any other update but treat the contained NLRI as unfeasible. I was going to write that this is sufficiently clear from the spec, but I regret to say that it isn't. Here is the fourth paragraph of section 9: The information carried by the AS_PATH attribute is checked for AS loops. AS loop detection is done by scanning the full AS path (as specified in the AS_PATH attribute), and checking that the autonomous system number of the local system does not appear in the AS path. If the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be stored in the Adj-RIB-In, but unless the router is configured to accept routes with its own autonomous system in the AS path, the route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process. Operations of a router that is configured to accept routes with its own autonomous system number in the AS path are outside the scope of this document. I don't think this is quite right -- the decision process needs to be run if the looped routes had previously been advertised feasibly on the same session. This could be fixed by hacking the quoted paragraph, but it seems more straightforward to do it by removing the quoted paragraph and making the fix in 9.1.2 Phase 2 instead. This could be done by inserting the following between the third and fourth paragraphs of 9.1.2 Phase 2: If the AS_PATH attribute of a BGP route contains an AS loop, the BGP route should be excluded from the Phase 2 decision function. AS loop detection is done by scanning the full AS path (as specified in the AS_PATH attribute), and checking that the autonomous system number of the local system does not appear in the AS path. Operations of a router that is configured to accept routes with its own autonomous system number in the AS path are outside the scope of this document. Section 9.3, first bullet, also addresses this topic, but I don't think it's sufficient. Yakov agreed that this was a change for the better and will include this in the next revision. We are at consensus on this issue. This is discussed in the "-18 last call comments" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Standardize FSM Timer Descriptions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Standardize the state descriptions on those listed in the discussion section of this issue. Discussion: Tom proposed: I think a standard description would serve us better instead of using the following different ways (which I take all to refer to the same entity): delayBGP open timer BGP delay open timer BGP open delay timer delay open timer BGP delay timer I suggest Open Delay timer (with those capitals) I believe that the corresponding flag is consistently referred to (apart from the capitalisation) as Delay Open flag Yakov agreed with this suggestion, no one else disagreed, we are at consensus. This was discussed in the "BGP18-FSM-terminology" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) FSM MIB enumerations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Move MIB references from the base spec into the MIB document. Discussion: Tom pointed out that: The FSM makes several references to putting values into MIB objects and while some of the values are defined, eg FSM error or Hold Timer expired, I can find no definition of the following in any of the BGP documents, MIB or otherwise. connect retry expired TCP disconnect administrative down collision detect closure Call Collision cease collision detected and dump connection Administrative stop I believe an implementation needs to be told these values somewhere and that there should be a reference to that place in bgp18. Jeff replied that to make things easier, the MIB references will be removed from the base spec, and into the MIB document. This was discussed in the "WG Last Call FSM MIB enumeration" thread, and the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm MIB objects" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) Make "delete routes" language consistant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace a variety of wording with "deletes all routes associated with this connection,". Discussion: Tom pointed out that we use a variety of language to say how we are going to delete routes in the FSM. He proposed that we instead use: - deletes all routes associated with this connection, This met with agreement, and will be reflected in the next version. This was discussed in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm delete action" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) Correct OpenSent and OpenConfirm delete wording ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Remove delete wording from OpenSent and OpenConfirm states. Discussion: Venu asked why there was delete wording in the OpenSent and OpenConfirm states when a BGP speaker cannot recieve routes in these states. Jeff acknowledged that this was an error. Yakov agreed to fix the next version. This was discussed in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm delete action" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) Incorrect next state when the delay open timer expires. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix the next state. Discussion: Tom pointed out that: I believe that there is an incorrect next state when the delay open timer expires [event 12] in the Active state. The next state should be OpenSent and not OpenConfirm. OpenConfirm is for KeepAlive processing when Open messages have been sent and received. OpenSent is for Open sent and not yet received. The corresponding section in Connect state I believe is correct. Yakov agreed, and will fix this in the next revision. This was discussed in the "bgp18 WG Last CAll fsm incorrect next state" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) Entering OpenConfirm / Adding "Stop OpenDelay" action ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Add new text agreeded upon in the discussion section, resolve possible addition of Stop OpenDelay action (not state, which we agreed doesn't reflect current practice.) Discussion: This discussion began with Tom outlining these two points: When the OpenConfirm state is entered from OpenSent with the receipt of a valid open [Event 18], then a KeepAlive message is sent and the timer is started. When the OpenConfirm state is entered from Active or Connect on receipt of a valid open [Event 19], no message is sent, no timer is started. I believe this inconsistency is an error and should be corrected by adding these two actions in those two places. Sue replied: Just to clarify this comment: Event 19 = valid open with delay timer running Active = 1) awaiting TCP connection, or 2) TCP connection completed and awaiting the TCP connection with delay timer running Case 1: - should not see Event 19 In transition from Active to Open Confirm, the connection must have a TCP connection completed. Case 1 does not have this occurring, so the transition must be avoided. Case 2: - should see Event 19 - Open, Keepalive should be sent. Previous text: (Action H from FSM document) If an Open is received with the BGP Delay Open timer running, [Event 19], the local system: - clears the connect retry timer [cleared to zero), - completes the BGP initialization, - stop and clears the BGP Open Delay timer, - Sends an Open Message, - sets the hold timer to a large value (4 minutes), and - changes its state to an Open Confirm. New text: [a New Action - N-2 : N + BGP keepalive sent] If an Open is received with the BGP Delay Open Timer running [Event 19], the local system: - clear the connect retry timer [cleared to zero], - completes the BGP initialization, - stops and clears the BGP Open Delay timer, - Send an Open message, - Sends a Keepalive message, - If hold timer value is non-zero, - set keepalive timer - hold timer reset to negotiated value else if hold timer is zero, - reset the keepalive timer, and - reset the hold timer. - If the value of the autonomous system field is the same as the local Autonomous system number, set the connection status to a internal connection; otherwise it is "external". Tom and Sue discussed the OpenDelay state, and recalled that this was excluded a number of months ago as not reflecting current practice. By way of clarification, Sue added: 1) Agree, this can occur in the Active state as well as the Connect state. Will you accept the earlier text below to be inserted both places? Background: The state machine for Event 19 is: Idle Connect Active Open Open Estb Sent Confirm =============================================== Event 19 | | | | | | | next state |Idle | Open | Open | Open |Idle | Idle | | | confirm| confirm| Confirm| | | =============================================== action | V | N-2 | N-2 | N | E-1 | E | =============================================== Per the State Machine. Action v - FSM Error Action E - FSM Error, drop connection - etc, drop routes Action E-1 - FSM Error, drop connection (lots of Action N-2 (text below) Action N (text below, without sending Open) 2) Do you think that Event 19 is possible in the Open Sent state? Please answer this separately. Tom replied that: 1) yes I think the same text in both Active and Connect states is a good resolution 2) complicated. As the fsm text stands, Event 19, along with a host of others, takes us back from Open Sent to Idle (I assume on the grounds this is an error condition) which seems very reasonable. But ...in quite a few places, such as Connect state events 2, 7,8,9,10,11, 17, 18, 20 thru 27, we do not stop the OpenDelay timer when going to Idle or Active so we could then go from eg Idle with Manual start [event 1] to Connect to Open Sent all before the OpenDelay timer expires in which case event 19 can occur validly in Open Sent - obscure but possible. (This is also true with Active state and events 2, 17 and the default list at the end). But I think this is an error, and that when exiting Connect state or Active state as listed above, we should have an additional action to stop the OpenDelay timer in which case event 19 in Open Sent becomes an error condition (again). But but but as ever, I cannot speak with authority for implementations and so if implementations do not stop the OpenDelay timer when exiting as above, then Event 19 is valid in Open Sent state - obscure but possible (again). My wish is to add the extra action, stop OpenDelay timer, for the events listed above in Active and Connect states in the expectation that that is what people have or should have implemented. Tom added a reponse to Sue after some other threads have been discussed: You asked if event 19 (Open with OpenDelay timer running) was possible in OpenSent state; I gave a lengthy reply (below) to the effect yes it could because the OpenDelay timer did not always get stopped but the timer should be stopped in which case the event would not happen. Reading your responses to Siva , I see you include stopping the Open Delay timer in the action 'release all BGP resources' when going to Idle (which I missed seeing earlier in the year). That eliminates most but not all of the possibilities I mentioned. I now believe we would need to add the action 'stop OpenDelay timer' for Connect state event 17 (currently defined as going to Active) event 9 (stays in Connect state) in order to stop event 19 in Open Sent This was discussed in the "bgp 18 WG Last Call fsm missing keepalive" thread. And also in the "Event 19 in Open Sent state was Re: bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing keepalive" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) FSM Missing Next States ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: See sub-issues Change: Potentially Summary: Seven sub-issues spawned to resolve each of the next-state questions. Discussion: This began with Tom pointing out 7 places where the next state was not clear. Interlaced with his comments below is the proposed text to fix the problems and the status of the issue. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.1) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Connect State) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add next state of Connect. Discussion: Tom pointed out that: Connect State: If the TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], the local system checks the "Delay Open Flag". If the delay Open flag is set, the local system: **enters what state Sue proposed these changes: 1) Connect State - Event 15 or Event 16 [consensus, editorial] note: The delay retry timer is utilized instead of the connect retry timer for the next two changes. Previous text: If the TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], local system checks the "Delay Open Flag". If the delay open flag is set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - sets the BGP open delay timer to initial value If the Delay Open flag is not set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - clear BGP Open Delay timer (set to zero), - completes the BGP initialization, - send an Open message to its peer, - sets hold timer to a large value, and - change the state to Open Sent. New text: If the TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], local system checks the Delay Open flag prior to processing: If the Delay Open flag is set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - sets the BGP open delay timer to initial value, and - stays in the Connect state. If the Delay Open flag is not set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - clears the BGP Delay timer (sets to zero), - completes the BGP initialization, - sends an Open message to its peer, - sets the hold timer to a large value, and - changes the state to Open Sent. Tom agreed that this was good, with the change to "Open Delay timer" as discussed in issue 7. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.2) FSM Missing Next States - Event 14 (Connect State) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Choose one of two alternatives for the next state after event 14. Possibly add a clause about peer oscillation damping. Discussion: Tom pointed out that: Connect State: If the TCP connection receives an indication that is invalid or unconfigured. [Event 14]: **enters what state Sue proposed these alternatives: 2)Connect State - Event 14 [no consensus] Current Text: If the TCP connection receives an indication that that is invalid or unconfigured [Event 14], - the TCP connection is rejected. At the very least this section needs more "word smithing", so I'd like to change it for more clarity at least. I'm not sure this represents the implementations. What I'd like to do is query the implementations to see what they do if they receive a valid TCP connection with an invalid or unconfigured peer. Two options: Alternative 1: Count it as a valid response New Text: If a TCP connection is received that has an invalid format, or an unconfigured host [Event 14], the local system: - rejects the TCP connection, - increments the connect retry counter, - performs bgp peer oscillation checks. If bgp peer oscillation checks allow for a new connection, the bgp peer - restarts the Connect retry timer with configured value, and - enters the Active state. FSM table: Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Confirm Establish Event-14 ======================================================= Next state Idle | Active|Active|Open-Sent|Open-Confirm|Establish| ======================================================= action V | Y2 | L | Ignore | Ignore | Ignore | ======================================================= Alternative 2: Reject the connection and see if valid or configured one appears within the connect timer window. New Text: If a TCP connection is received that has an invalid format, or an unconfigured host [Event 14], the local system: - rejects the TCP connection, - and stays in the Connect state. FSM table: Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Confirm Establish Event-14 ======================================================= Nxt state Idle |Connect|Active|Open-Sent|Open-Confirm|Establish| ======================================================= action V | L | L | Ignore | Ignore | Ignore | ======================================================= Sue then sent out a call to implementors to let the list know what they did with their FSMs. Tom replied that he agreed that we need to wait to see what the existing implementations do. He also suggested: **tp need a then clause here 'if bgp peer oscillation damping does not allow for a new connection, then the local system ???' be added before the FSM table in option 1 of the proposed text. Sue prodded the list saying that: Should the peer: 1) Treat it as a valid response, and enters the active state to watch for a another TCP connection with a valid peer. 2) treat it as an invalid response, reject the connection and see if a valid configured one comes iwthin the connect timer's window. Without further input, I will select option 2. Curtis replied that this was fine with him. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. It was also discussed in the "BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.3) FSM Missing Next States - Event 15 or 16 (Active State) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add text listed in discussion. Discussion: Tom pointed out: Active State: A TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], the local system: process the TCP connection flags - If the BGP delay open flag is set: ** enters what state (I think this is an FSM error in TCP because it has not initiated a connection!) Sue proposed these changes: Previous text: A TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], the local system: process the TCP connection flags - If the BGP delay open flag is set: - clears the connect retry timer [through the following text: - and changes its state to Open Sent. New text: If the TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 or Event 16], local system checks the "Delay Open Flag" prior to processing: If the delay open flag is set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - sets the BGP open delay timer to initial value, and - stays in the Active state. If the Delay Open flag is not set, the local system: - clears the connect retry timer, - clears the BGP Delay timer (sets to zero), - completes the BGP initialization, - sends an Open message to its peer, - sets the hold timer to a large value, and - changes the state to Open Sent. Tom agreeded with this. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.4) FSM Missing Next States - Event 13-17 (TCP Connection) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Get feedback from implementors on TCP connection events. Discussion: Tom started this by saying that: If the local system receives a valid TCP Indication [Event 13], the local system processes the TCP connection flags. ** enters what state If the local system receives a TCP indication that is invalid for this connection [Event 14]: ** enters what state Sue proposed we move this to the "fsm missing next state - Events 13-17 and the TCP connection" thread. The response in this thread was: 4) Active State, Event 13 [no consensus] 5) Active State, Event 14 [no consensus] The problem with this state is it is difficult to exactly specify without discussing the TCP Messages that FSM document covers. I'll query if the implementors require all of events 13-17 as mandatory. Sue polled the implemtentors on the list with this query: These events are described in section 8.1.3. In our discussion in January through May of 2002, many implementers mapped their implementation onto the following TCP events list in 8.1.3. Events 13 - 17 Event 13 - TCP connection indication & valid remote peer Event 14 - TCP connection indication with invalid source or destination Event 15 - TCP connection request sent (by this peer) received an Acknowledgement [ local system sent a TCP SYN, Received a TCP SYN, ACK pair back, and Sent a TCP ACK] Event 16 - TCP connection confirmed [local system received a TCP SYN, sent a TCP SYN, ACK back, and received a TCP ACK] Event 17 - TCP connections Should we have all of these states? Which implementations support all of these Events? The full FSM text was snipped here for brevity. Sue prodded the list with: Do the implementors require Events 13 - 17 in the State machine ? Event 13 - TCP connection valid indication Event 14 - TCP connection invalid indication Event 15 - TCP connection request acknowedged Event 16 - TCP connection confirmed Event 17 - TCP connection fails Choice 1: Events 13 - 17 are mandatory Choice 2: Event 13 and Event 14 be optional, and Events 15 - 17 be mandatory. If no one objects, we will use Choice 2. Curtis said this was fine with him. This was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. And continued in the "fsm missing next state - Events 13-17 and the TCP connection" thread. It was also discussed in the "BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.5) FSM Missing Next States - Event 17 (Connect State) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Closed in favor of 13.4 Discussion: If the local system receives a TCP connection failed [Event 17] (timeout or receives connection disconnect), the local system will: ** enters what state Sue replied with this: comment: In the Active state, we may already have a connection and be awaiting the Open Delay timer. The TCP disconnect or timeout could occur in this state due to the "Open Delay Timer". If the TCP Disconnect is ignored, we could have some peer oscillation. If the we wait, then the connection retry timer needs to be kept running. The text below allows this timer. The real question is what is the status of the current implementations. I agree, the Active state and the connect state should match. Old Text: If the TCP connection fails (timeout or disconnection) [Event 17], the local system: - set TCP disconnect in the MIB reason code, - restart Connect retry timer (with initial value), - release all BGP resources, - Acknowledge the Drop of the TCP connection if TCP disconnect (FIN ACK), - Increment ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, and - performs the BGP peer oscillation damping process. Applicable FSM State table: FSM table old: Event 17 current: Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Confirm Establish ========================================================= Next state Idle |Active |Idle |Active | Idle |Idle | | | | | | | ========================================================= action V | Y2 | G | Ignore| Track 2nd | Track 2nd | | | | | connection | connection| ========================================================= Alternative 1: FSM table new: Event 17 current: Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Confirm Establish ========================================================= Next state Idle |Active |Active |Active | Idle |Idle | | | | | | | ========================================================= action V | G | G | Ignore| Track 2nd | Track 2nd | | | | | connection | connection| ========================================================= G: The local system: - restarts the connect retry timer (at intial value), - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote peer, and - sets its next state to Active. New Text: (for Connect and Active state) If the TCP connection fails (timeout or disconnect) [Event 17], the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes it state to Active. Alternative 2: FSM table new: Event 17 current: Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Confirm Establish ========================================================= Next state Idle |Idle |Idle |Active | Idle |Idle | | | | | | | ========================================================= action V | Y2 | Y2 | Ignore| Track 2nd | Track 2nd | | | | | connection | connection| ========================================================= Next Text: If the location system receives a TCP connection failed [Event 17], the local system will: - increment the ConnectRetrycnt (connect retry count) by 1, - release all BGP resources associated with this connection, - perform BGP peer oscillation (if configured), and - go to Idle Y2 - is: The local system: 1) increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, 2) releases all BGP resources associated with this connection, and 3) performs the BGP peer oscillation damping process if the damping process allows for a new connection, the local system - restarts the connect retry timer (with initial value, and - goes to Idle If the damping process does not allow for a new connection, the local system - set the flags to damp the creation of a new bgp connection until a manual start occurs, and - goes to Idle. Tom agreed with the options, and stated that he prefered option 2. Sue is also happy with option 2, if no one else chimes in. After the issues list came out Tom responded to this issue, saying: I think this issue SHOULD be administratively terminated. It relates to Connect state Event 17 (TCP connection fails) and I am credited with raising it; in fact, the issue I raised was missing next state for Active state event 17 and this has now been subsumed into 13.4 (but note that 13.4 does not explicitly say Active state - I know it should because I raised that issue too). I will ensure it does not get lost from any resolution of 13.4. And Connect state event 17 does appear as part of issue 45 which Siva raised so I think that either way, 13.5 can go. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.6) FSM Missing Next States - Event 18 (Open Confirm) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Get reponses from implementors, get collision detection text cleared up. Proposed text is below. Discussion: Tom opened this with: Open Confirm State: If the Open messages is valid [Event 18], the collision detect function is processed per section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to call collision, the local system: ** enters what state Sue replied with: Here's my proposed text. Please let me know what you think. I think this is an editorial change. Old text: If the open message is valid, the collision detect function is processed per section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to call collision, the local system: - sends a Notification with a Cease - resets the Connect timer (to zero), - releases all BGP resources, - Drop the TCP connection (sends a TCP FIN), - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1 (connect retry count), and - performs an BGP peer oscillation damping process. New text: If the open message is valid, the BGP peer connection is check to detect a collision per section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to call collision, the local system: - sends a Notification with a Cease - resets the Connect timer (to zero), - releases all BGP resources, - Drop the TCP connection (sends a TCP FIN), - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1 (connect retry count), and - performs an BGP peer oscillation damping processing, and - enters the Idle State. notes: Collision detect impacts Open Sent, Open Confirm, and Established states. Tom replied: I am still struggling with; we are in OpenConfirm so we already have received an Open from the remote peer and Event 18 is a second Open from the same peer. Perhaps my struggle is that I think in terms of two (or more) FSM for a given IP address pair so the Open Collision detection will occur when the/an- other FSM receives a valid Open in states Active/Connect/Open Sent and will generate Event 22 into this FSM so Event 18 cannot occur. But yes, if Event 18 can occur in this FSM and this connection is to be dumped, then Idle state it should be as you suggest. I have slotted in [optionally] in front of the peer oscillation damping in your text because I think it should be optional:-) Sue replied: this mechanism allows a single fsm to handle both. 2 fsm and 1 fsm BGP FSM seem to exist. (I queried implementors a few times on this one. So, I just put in this change to provide the flexibility. Collision detect tends to give scrambled brains for most people.. As Dennis Ferguson said 2 years ago, that's the hardest part of the FSM. Sue then stated that she would query implementors to see what is being done. Sue prodded the list with: In the Open Confirm state, a valid Open message [Event 22] is received. The BGP Peer connection is check to ee if there is a collision per section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to the call collision, the local system will drop the call by: - sending a NOTIFICATION with a CEASE, - resets the Connect timer (to zero), - releases all BGP resources (this includes stopping the Open Delay Timer and reseting it to zero), - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1 (connect retry +count), and - optionally performs a BGP peer oscilation damping processing, and - enters the Idle State. Implementors need to verify if this text and the text for Event 22 allows all implementors to perform the necessary Call Collision actions. If no objects, we will use this text. Curtis said he had no problem with this. This conversation was started in the "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing next state" thread. It was also discussed in the "BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) FSM - Peer Oscillation Damping ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change references to peer oscillation damping to consistant phrase: "[optionally] performs peer oscillation damping". Also remove old reference to "BGP Peer Restart Backoff Mechanisms". Discussion: Tom suggested we use consistant terminology to refer to peer osillation damping. He also pointed out a stale reference. Yakov agreed to fix both of these. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) FSM - Consistent FSM Event Names ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Make FSM names consistent. Specifics are in the discssion section. Discussion: Tom proposed that: The event name used in the FSM show much variation to the point sometimes where I am not clear that it is always the same event (eg where the event name is qualified by a subset of the possible causes). Assuming that it is, I propose the following changes to make the wording consistent, clear and concise for event names. ** denotes changed text using the convention /'old text'/'new text'/ 8. BGP Finite State machine Event1: Manual start Event2: Manual stop Event3: Automatic start **Event4: Manual start with passive TCP /estabishment/flag/ **Event5: Automatic start with passive TCP /establishment/flag/ Event6: Automatic start with bgp_stop_flap option set **Event7: Auto//matic/ stop Event8: Idle hold timer expires Event9: Connect retry timer expires **Event10: Hold time//r/ expires Event11: Keepalive timer expires Event12: Open Delay timer expires **Event13: TCP connection valid indication **Event14: TCP connection invalid indication **Event15: TCP connection request /sent received an ACK/acknowledged/ Event16: TCP connection confirmed Event17: TCP connection fails Event18: BGPOpen Event19: BGPOpen with *Open Delay timer running Event20: BGPHeaderErr Event21: BGPOpenMsgErr Event22: Open collision dump Event23: NotifMsgVerErr Event24: NotifMsg Event25: KeepAliveMsg Event26: UpdateMsg Event27: UpdateMsgErr 8.2.2 Finite State Machine Connect State: If the BGP port receives a ** valid TCP connection indication [Event 13], If the TCP connection receives **an invalid indication [Event 14]: If the TCP connection fails **/(timeout or disconnect)// [Event17] Active State: If the local system receives a **valid TCP //indication/ [Event 13], If the local system receives a TCP connection failed [Event 17] **/(timeout or receives connection disconnect)//, Open Sent: If a connection in Open Sent is determined to be the connection that must be closed, an **/administrative collision detect/Open collision dump/ [Event 22] is signaled to the state machine. If such an **/administrative collision detect dump [Event 22]/event/ is If a TCP **//connection valid/ indication [Event 13] or TCP **//connection/ request **//acknowledged/ [Event 15] Open Confirm State: ... or receives a TCP **/Disconnect// connection fails/ [Event 17] from the In the event of **/TCP establishment//TCP connection valid indication /[Event 13] .... the local system will **/issue a call/generate an Open/ collision dump [Event 22]. When the local system receives a **/call/open/ collision dump event [Event 22]/such an event/, the Established State: **/disconnect from the underlying TCP/TCP connection fails/ [Event17], it: ... it will process **/a Call/an Open/ Collision dump event[Event 22]. Notes: Event 4 title brought in line with text Event 5 title brought in line with text Event 7 title brought in line with text Event 13 title shortened to be closer to text, text brought in line Event 14 title shortened to be closer to text, text brought in line Event 15 title brought in line with text Event 17 text brought in line with title (text often introduces qualifying conditions that are too restrictive) Event 22 text brought in line with title Sue replied: I will accept the text you proposed for the Event names. I will update the FSM text to include your changes. We'll consider issue 15 in consensus. I've fixed the text. So we are at consensus here. This is discussed in the thread: "bgp18 WG Last Call fsm event names." It was also discussed in the "Issue 15 - Consistent FSM Event Names" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) Many Editorial Comments ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Many editorial suggestions, and what we are doing with them are listed below. Some issues have been broken out seperately where there is a longer discussion on them. Discussion: Alex began this by presenting comments from an anonymous reviewer, unless otherwise noted, responses are from Yakov: > Almost all of these are simple clarifications. > > Section 1, page 5: IGP definition - it's not clear from this > definition whether IBGP would be considered an IGP? any suggestion on how to improve the definition to clarify this issue would be appreciated. There was some further discussion on this and it was decided that people reading this document ought to know what an IGP is. > Section 3, page 7, para 4: Does RFC 1772 still represent the *planned* > use of BGP? Or the actual use? Or something different from actual > use? Perhaps we should just take out references to 1772. Further discussion seemed to indicate that this reference should stay. > Section 3, page 8, para 3 - "The hosts executing..." This paragraph > seems obsolete. I'll take it out. With regard to this, Siva asked if some route optimizaiton vendors rely on this. Since this wasn't resolved, it is discussed further in issue 17. > Section 4.1, page 11 - Length is in network byte order. all the encodings are in network byte order. This applies not just to the BGP spec, but to other protocols as well. This comment was made about a number of fields. It was later agreed that a reference would be made to this at the beginning of the document. > Section 4.2, page 12 - Hold Time - what does a value of zero indicate? if you read section 4.4 then you'll find that: If the negotiated Hold Time interval is zero, then periodic KEEPALIVE messages MUST NOT be sent. > Section 4.2, page 13 - BGP Identifier - network byte order? > "IP address" -> "IPv4 address" I'll put at the beginning a sentence saying that in the context of this document the term "IP address" means an IP Version 4 address. > Section 4.3, Page 14, para1, sentence 2 - "path attribute" -> "path > attributes" fixed. > Section 4.3,Page 17, NEXT_HOP: "IP address" -> "IPv4 address" > Specify that this is 4 octets. > Reference here to multi-protocol extensions for IPv6 nexthop? no. > RFC 2283 is unclear whether NEXT_HOP should always be included > when using multiprotocol extensions. Clarify this here? It is already clarified in 2283bis. > Section 4.3, Page 17/18 - MED and LocalPref: > "non-negative" -> "unsigned" for consistency with elsewhere. > (non-negative might imply values > 2^31 cannot be used). fixed. > Section 4.3, Page 19 - Prefix: "IP address" -> "IPv4 address" > Prefix: "enough trailing bits to" -> "the minimum number of > trailing bits needed to" fixed. > Section 4.4, Page 20: - "BGP does not use any TCP-based keep-alive > mechanism to determine if peers are reachable". Is it worth noting > that TCP may still timeout the connection even if TCP keepalives are > turned off? the text is fine as it is. > Section 4.4, Page 20: > KEEPALIVE message consists" -> "A KEEPALIVE message consists" fixed. > Section 5, Page 23: "The same attribute can not appear more than once > with the Path Attributes field...". Does this mean the same attribute > type, or the same attribute type and value? the former (the same attribute type). > Section 5.1 "The usage of each BGP path attributes .." -> attribute fixed. > Section 5.1.3 "IP address" -> "IPv4 address" > > "A BGP speaker must never advertise an address of a peer to that peer > as a NEXT_HOP, for a route that the speaker is originating." > suggest replace this text with: > "A route originated by a BGP speaker must never be advertised to a > peer using an address of that peer as NEXT_HOP" fixed. > Section 5.1.4: "A BGP speaker MUST IMPLEMENT a mechanism ... which > allows the MULTI_EXIT_DISC to be removed from a route." Might want to > say that this is dangerous unless you received the route from an EBGP > peer? think we should keep the text as is. > Section 5.1.5: "If it [LOCAL_PREF] is contained in an UPDATE message > that is received from an external peer, then this attribute MUST be > ignored by the receiving speaker, except for the case of BGP > Confederations [RF3065]." > - "ignored" might be taken to mean that you don't process it for > decision, but that you propagate it to internal peers. I might > write "silently removed" or something similar. I think the text is ok as is. > Section 5.1.5, para 2. "set of AS" -> "set of ASs" fixed. > Section 6.3: wrt NEXT_HOP semantic correctness: should we check that a > NEXT_HOP is not a multicast or broadcast address? I'll add to the definition of NEXT_HOP that it is a unicast address. > Section 6.3, page 32, para 7: "peer than sent" -> "peer that sent" fixed. > Section 6.3: "if any attribute appears more than once" - does this > mean the same attribute type, or the same attribute type and value? the former. > Section 6.8 "Comparing BGP identifiers is done by treating them as > (4-octet-long) unsigned integers". Need to convert to host byte order > before comparing. fixed. > Section 6.8, item 2: "closes BGP connection" -> "closes the BGP connection" > "accepts BGP connection" -> "accepts the BGP connection". fixed. > Section 9.1.2.2: item (c): in the explanation of neighborAS(n), it is > unclear for IBGP connections how to determine "the neighbor AS from > which the other IBGP speaker learned the route". If this is really > the leftmost entry in the AS path (or the local AS if the path is > empty), the spec should explicitly say so. fixed. > Section 9.1.2.2, page 63, paragraph starting "If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC > attribute is removed before..." The first sentence is pretty nearly > incomprehensible. This topic has some more discussion surrounding what text we should use to clarify this issue. This is followed up in issue 18. > Section 9.1.2.2 (d) > "d) If at least one of the candidate routes was received from an > external peer in a neighboring autonomous system, remove from con- > sideration all routes which were received from internal peers." > For consistency with (c) and clarity, this might be reworded: > "d) If any of the candidate routes was learned via EBGP, remove > from consideration all routes which were learned by IBGP." fixed. > Section 9.1.2.2 (e) > "cost (n) is better than cost (m)" > Given the definition of cost, it might be clearer to say > "cost (n) is lower than cost (m)" fixed. > Section 9.1.2.2 (g) > "neighbor address" has not been defined. I'll replace "neighbor address" with "peer address". > Section 9.2.2.2, Page 70 (AGGREGATOR) - "All AGGREGATOR attributes of > all routes to be aggregated should be ignored." > > Perhaps "ignored" is ambiguous here, and it's not clear whether > should is a SHOULD. Suggest: > > "Any AGGREGATOR attributes from the routes to be aggregated MUST > NOT be included in the aggregated route." fixed. > Section 9.3 - shouldn't this subsection be moved to the discussion of > Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the decision process? Or at least move it > before Section 9.2. I think it is fine where it is now. > Appendix E, para 2: IP precedence has been deprecated. Delete this > paragraph, or replace with appropriate diffserv codepoint. deleted. > Security Considerations: > "BGP supports the ability to authenticate BGP messages by using BGP > authentication." > This sentence should be removed, and the Authentication Information > parameter has been deprecated. Please see the recent e-mail exchange on the Security Considerations See issue 19 for more on the Security Considerations section of the draft. These topics were discussed in the "proxy: more comments on the draft -18" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Do existing vendors rely on this, or no? If no, remove it. Discussion: This issue was spawned from the discussions in issue 16, specifically: Anonymous reviwer: > Section 3, page 8, para 3 - "The hosts executing..." This paragraph > seems obsolete. Yakov: I'll take it out. With regard to this, Siva asked if some route optimizaiton vendors rely on this. Jeff replied: To provide context, this paragraph currently reads: : The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host : could exchange routing information with routers via EGP [RFC904] or : even an interior routing protocol. That non-routing host could then : use BGP to exchange routing information with a border router in : another Autonomous System. The implications and applications of this : architecture are for further study. There are several deployed entities that could be considered to "exploit" this paragraph. Route collectors, route servers, bandwidth shapers and other optimizers. However, the original text may be showing its age a little bit. Perhaps the following might be a bit more appropriate: "The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host may exchange routing information with a BGP speaker for reasons that are outside the scope of this document." I would also propose adding to the same paragraph (but could be persuaded to drop it since it is *logically* redundant): "These non-routing hosts should exercise great care not to insert themselves into the forwarding path if they re-announce BGP routes." Yakov replied: Since operations of non-routing host are outside the scope of the document, and since the document doesn't preclude non-routing hosts to run BGP, I would prefer just to take the following paragraph out, and not to add any new text. The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host could exchange routing information with routers via EGP [RFC904] or even an interior routing protocol. That non-routing host could then use BGP to exchange routing information with a border router in another Autonomous System. The implications and applications of this architecture are for further study. Jeff replied that this was ok, and instead suggested: At the beginning of the document, we define: BGP speaker A router that implements BGP. This (potentially) restricts a speaker to being a router. Additionally, several spots in the text where we probably should say "BGP speaker", we use router. Yakov agreed to add this definition. Jeff replied that there still was a problem with this definition being too limiting. The discussion meandered off list for a couple of exchanges and these additional definitions were proposed: First Jeff proposed this: "A router that implements the BGP protocol. Non-routing hosts that also implement BGP are out of scope of this document." Then Andrew replied, that we should make sure the definition does not opt out entirely from making sure that non-routing hosts are interoperable: BGP Speaker A router that implements the BGP protocol. The internal behavior of non-routing hosts that also implement BGP are out of scope of this document. However, in their interactions with routers, non-routing hosts must behave as if they were routers. And Jeff replied: BGP Speaker A router that implements the BGP protocol. The internal behavior of non-routing hosts that also implement BGP are out of scope of this document. However, in their interactions with BGP speaking routers, non-routing hosts that implement BGP should be indistinguishable from a router on the wire. (or something like that - s/on the wire/ with whatever sounds best.) IOW, look like bgp on the wire - what you do internally is out of scope. This was discussed in the "proxy: more comments on draft -18" thread. And in the "Issues list, #17: Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete?" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) MED Removal Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Select new text from the options below. Discussion: This issue is spawned from issue 16. An anonymous reviewer pointed out: > Section 9.1.2.2, page 63, paragraph starting "If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC > attribute is removed before..." The first sentence is pretty nearly > incomprehensible. Yakov replied: here is my attempt to clarify this: If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, then (prior to the removal) the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute may only be considered in the comparison of EBGP learned routes; the attribute is then removed, and then the remaining EBGP learned routes may be compared to the remaining IBGP learned routes, without considering the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute for those EBGP learned routes whose MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute will be removed before advertising these routes to IBGP. Any further suggestions on how to improve this would be appreciated. Siva replied: How about this: % If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a % route into IBGP, then comparison based on the MULT_EXIT_DISC % attribute may (MUST?) be performed only among the EBGP learned routes. % This comparison MUST be performed before the removal of the % MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. The MULT_EXIT_DISC attribute must then % be removed from those EBGP routes where such removal is required and % which are still eligible. This is followed by comparison with IBGP % learned routes. I think this reflects our objectives, which is: a) If MED is to be removed, compare EBGP routes based on the MED b) Then remove the MED c) Then do comparison with IBGP routes Andrew suggested: If a router is configured to remove a MUTLI_EXIT_DISC attribute from a route learned from EBGP, before readvertising it into IBGP the router MUST compare the route with other EBGP-learned routes before removing the MULTI_EXIT_DISC. Once this comparison is complete, the MED may be removed, and any remaining routes can be compared with IBGP routes to determine the best route. This is discussed in the "proxy: more comments on draft 18" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) Security Considerations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix Security Considerations section to include manditory MD5 auth and advance security considerations draft along with the base draft. Discussion: Yakov started this discussion by proposing text which would require TCP MD5 authententication for BGP implementations. This is to bring the spec in line with an IETF requirement that authentication be available. After some discussion the plan is to advance draft-ietf-idr-bgp-vuln-00.txt as Informational along with the base BGP specification. This draft will serve as the security analysis section of the base spec. This is discussed in the "revised Security Considerations section" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) Peer Oscillation Damping ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Keep the Peer Oscillation Damping reference in the specification. Discussion: This began when Siva proposed: Since this feature is going to be added in a new draft, and its addition will change the operation of the state machine, can we remove all mention of it in the state machine ? As part of this removal, can we also remove the IdleHold Timer from the FSM since it is not useful in the absence of peer oscillation damping ? The draft that describes this procedure can then describe the change in the state machine required to do this. Sue replied that: The reason we should not remove the peer oscillation damping from the state machine: 1) Deployed implementations support peer oscillation damping 2) Hooks for the additions in the FSM cannot be added later. These hooks are optional and do not need to be implemented. Siva replied: I understand. I am not trying to object to peer oscillation damping, I think it is a good idea and we have included it in our implementation as well. I was suggesting that instead of a partial description in this draft, it be completely described in the draft on peer oscillation damping. However, I do see your point, and unless there are any objections from others, I think we have consensus on this issue. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the text in the discussion section. Discussion: This discussion began with Siva asking: Why have a Hold Timer and a Hold Time ? Can we replace this with just Hold timer ? Can we also add the following session attributes: a) DelayBgpOpenTimer b) IdleHold Timer (in case we choose not to remove this from the bas = FSM) Can we also add the following flag to the session attributes: a) DelayOpen Flag After some discussion we have this text on the table: Event8: Idle hold timer expires Definition: An Event generated when the Idle Hold Timer expires. The Idle Hold Timer is only used when the persistent peer oscillation damping function is enabled. % % Implementations not implemented persistent % peer oscillations damping functions may not % have the Idle Hold Timer. Sue replied: I will accept the new text for the following total text: Event8: Idle hold timer expires Definition: An event generated when the Idle Hold Timer expires indicating that the session has completed a back-off period to prevent bgp peer oscillation. The Idle Hold Timer is only used when the persistent peer oscillation damping function is enabled. Implementations not implementing the presistent peer oscillation damping functions may not have the Idle Hold Timer. Status: Optional We are at consensus with this. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #2. And in the "Draft 19 - issue #21" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Add the text in the discussion section to section 8.0. Discussion: This begain with Siva propsosing: Can we call these out as well: * Accept Connections from unconfigured peers (Enabled/Disabled) * Peer Oscillation Dampening (Enabled/Disabled) (In case we choose not to remove it from base spec) After some discussion we have this text on the table: The following will be added to 8.0 Optional parameters that may be supported either per connection or per implementation: 1) Delay Open flag 2) Delay Open Timer 3) Perform automatic start flag 4) Passive TCP establishment flag 5) BGP stop_peer_flag flag 6) Idle Hold timer 7) Perform automatic stop flag 8) Perform Collision detect in Establish mode flag Sue accepted these changes, we're at consensus with this. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #3. This was also discussed in the "BGP Draft 19 - Close open items 22" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) Event1/Event2 Clean Up ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Use "Local system administrator" in both sections. Discussion: Siva proposed that we clean up the text for these Events by selecting either "Administrator" or "Local system" but not both. Sue proposed text using "Local system administrator" that was agreed on. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) Events 3, 5, 6 & 7 Give Examples ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Do we have consensus on the new text? Discussion: This began with Siva proposing we add examples for these event states. Sue believes this is largely out-of-scope, but did agree to move the example of "automatic stop" to the event description section. She asked for proposed text for additional examples. Sue replied that she has made the following changes, and asked if these worked for Siva. New text: Event7: Automatic stop Definition: Local system automatically stops the BGP connection. An example of an automatic stop event is exceeding the number of prefixes for a given peer and the local system automatically disconnecting the peer. Status: Optional depending on local system This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #5. This was also in the "Issue 25" thread, and the "Issue 25 - this is really issue 24" threads. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) Event 4 & 5 Session Initiation Text ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Leave the text as is. Discussion: This began with Siva wanting to change: Definition: Local system automatically starts the BGP session with the passive flag=20 enabled. The passive flag indicates=20 that the peer will listen prior to=20 establishing a connection. to: The passive flag indicates that the state machine will wait for specified peer to initiate a connection with the local system. If this does not happen within a specific time (hold time), the local system will then also attempt to initiate connection with the specified peer. Sue replied: The text in 8.2.1.1 indicates the definition of the passive flag. 6a) ========== My understanding of your text is that you want to replace in both sets of text: "The passive flag indicates the peer will listen prior to establishing a connection". with: "The passive flag indicates that the state machine will wait for the specified peer to initiate a connection with a local system. The problem with this sentence is that in the "unconfigured" case the phrase "specified" peer is confusing. I think the original text is clearer. 6b) ========== If this does not happen within a specific time (hold time), the local system will then also attempt to initiate (a) connection with the specified peer. My comments: Again, the "specified peer" term is confusing. Also, the 2nd half of the statement mixes the actions of the state machine with the events. I believe this muddies the text instead of clarifying it. Siva and Sue later agreed to leave the text the same because of the Unconfigured + passive TCP connection + Delay Open situation. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Add new event (#3) below. Does that settle things? Discussion: This began with Siva asking: Won't a variant of this with bgp_stop_flap option set be requried ? We can also achieve the same by using the bgp_stop-Flap option as a flag that is provided as an input to the state machine. Siva later clarified this to include: We already have Event 3 - Automatic Start Event 5 - Automatic start with bgp_stop_flap option set To make things consistent, shouldn't we either a) Add 3 new events : 1) Manual start with bgp_stop flap option set 2) Manual start with passive TCP establishment and bgp_stop_flap option set 3) Automatic start with passive TCP establishment and bgp_stop_flap option set or b) Remove Event 6, and rely on a flag to tell us wether peer flap damping is to be performed for the session or not. Sue said she prefered option A. And stated that #1 & #2 are infeasible, but that we need to add #3. Tom replied: But if we add an event, then we must add and agree on actions for all six existing states so I think to say that adding a new event settle things might be naive. If we do add 3) Automatic start with passive TCP establishment and bgp_stop_flap option set which I understand is Sue's resolution, then for Idle state the actions are straightforward but for the other five, is the event completely ignored? If so, does it mean that the passive flag and the bgp_stop_flap option are ignored and we carry on as if we were when we were started which may have been without them. Or is the fact of starting ignored but the flags remain set and so color the effect of other events? Needs defining. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #7. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) Event 5 Clarification ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Leave the text as is. Discussion: This began when Siva asked that in event 5: Is it correct that this event will occur only when we want to restart a connection (after it had been terminated due to some reason beside administrative action) that we had accepted from an unconfigured peer ? Sue replied: The automatic start function is an implementation specific mechanism. This text does not seek to restrict it in any fashion. Siva said that although he felt his original clarification would be more useful to new implementors he is ok with the text as is. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #8. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) Timer Events Definition - Make Consistant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change text to use "generate" across the board. Discussion: Can we use similar language for Events 8-12 to make them consistant? It was agreed that we will use "generate" i.e.: Event 8: An event generated when the Idle Hold timer expires. Event 9: An event generated when the ConnectRetry timer expires. Event 10: An event generated when the Hold timer expires. Event 11: An event generated when the Keepalive timer expires Event 12: An event generated when the Delay BGP Open timer expires. This is at consensus. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread Comment #9. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) Event 8 - Clean Up ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Clean up first sentance. New text below. Discussion: Siva began this by asking if we could clean up the wording of Event 8. After some discussion with Sue we are at this change for the first sentance: An event trigerred by the expiry of the Idle Hold timer, indicating that the session has completed waiting for a back-off period to prevent bgp peer oscillation. This was discussed in the "Response to FSM input - Comments 1-10" thread: Comment #10. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) Hold Timer - Split? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Keep the hold timer text as is. Discussion: Siva proposed that since: We use the hold timer for two purposes * Waiting for an open message (with a default value of 240 seconds) * Waiting for Keepalives (with a default value of 90 seconds) Can we use two different timers (or at least call them two different timer events) ? Sue replied that this is not how it is implemented currently. Siva replied that we have two conceptually different timers, but that it would certainly work to only have one, since only one needs to be running at any given time. Tom agreed that we can keep things as is. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #11. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) OpenDelay Timer Definition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes - See issue 28 Summary: This is fixed by the fixing of issue 28. Discussion: This began with Siva's request that we add something to Event 12 to specify what to do when the timer expires. This seems to have been addressed in issue 28. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #12. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) Definition of TCP Connection Accept (Event 13) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Change "Definition" text as indicated below. Discussion: Siva proposed that we change text from refering to "TCP connection request" to "receiving a TCP connection". This led to this proposed text: Definition: Event indicating the reception of a TCP connection request with a valid source IP address and TCP port, and valid destination IP address and TCP Port. The definition of invalid source address and port and invalid destination address is left to the implementation. This met with agreement. This thread also discussed the idea of filtering the incomming address/port. It was decided that this was implementation dependant. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #13. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) Event 13 & 14 - Valid Addresses & Ports ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: We're at consensus for most of this, but we need to agree on the destination port portion of this. Discussion: With regard to Event 13 & 14, Siva raised questions about: 1) What does it mean to validate a port, and 2) Should we state what we consider an invalid IP addres to be? Sue replied that this is local policy and is implementation dependant. Siva agreed regarding the source port & IP address, but disagreed about the destination port. He argued that we need to know the destination port for interoperability. Sue asked Siva to provide some text. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #14. This was also in the "BGP-19: Issue 33" thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34) Event 17 - TCP Connection Fails to TCP Connection Termination ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Select either "fails" or "disconnect", and choose title from either "TCP connection fails" or "TCP connection termination". Discussion: This began with Siva observing: This event can occur even when the transport connection is closed by the other end. Since this does not reflect a 'failure ', can we change the event name to % Event17: TCP connection termination Sue replied that: Discussion: It both terminates from the remote site and can "timeout" - fail. Suggestions? I can use "disconnect", what do you think. Siva replied that this was a minor issue, and on further reflection, either "fails" or "disconnect" would be acceptable. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #15. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35) Making Definition Style Consistant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Almost at consensus with this, just need to decide if we're going to adopt the same style for events 18-21. Text for 13-21 is below Discussion: This started with Siva asking if we could make the definition style consistant across eventsr. Sue replied to this with text for 13-17, Siva clarified that he was talking more about 18-21, and proposed text. We are agreed on the text for 13-17: Event13: TCP connection indication and valid remote peer Definition: Event indicating the local system reception of a TCP connection request with a valid source IP address and TCP port, and valid destination IP address and TCP Port. The definition of invalid source, and invalid destination IP address is left to the implementation. BGP's destination port SHOULD be port 179 as defined by IANA. TCP connection request is denoted by the local system receiving a TCP SYN. Status: Mandatory (Optional) Event14: RCV TCP connection indication with invalid source or destination Definition: Event indicating the local system reception of a TCP connection request with either an invalid source address or port number or an invalid destination address or port number. BGP destination port number SHOULD be 179 as defined by IANA. Again, a TCP connection request denoted by local system receiving a TCP SYN. Status: Mandatory (Optional) Event15: TCP connection request sent received an ACK. Definition: Event indicating the Local system's request to establish a TCP connection to the remote peer. The local system's TCP session sent a TCP SYN, and received a TCP SYN, ACK pair of messages, and Sent a TCP ACK. Status: Mandatory Event16: TCP connection confirmed Definition: Event indicates that the local system receiving a confirmation that the TCP connection has been established by the remote site. The remote peer's TCP engine sent a TCP SYN. The local peer's TCP engine sent a SYN, ACK pair, and now has received a final ACK. Status: Mandatory Event17: TCP connection fails Definition: Event indicates that the local system has received a TCP connection failure notice. The remote BGP peer's TCP machine could have sent a FIN. The local peer would respond with a FIN-ACK. Another alternative is that the local peer indicated a timeout in the TCP session and downed the connection. Status: Mandatory Siva proposed these changes for 18-21: > Event18: BGPOpen > > Definition: An event indicating that a valid Open > message has been received. with % Event18: BGPOpen % % Definition: An event is generated when a valid Open % message has been received. > Event19: BGPOpen with BGP Delay Open Timer running > > Definition: An event indicating that a valid Open > message has been successful > established for a peer that is > currently delaying the sending of an > BGP Open message. with % Event19: BGPOpen with BGP Open Delay Timer running % % Definition: An event is generated when a valid Open % message has been received for a peer that % is currently delaying the sending of a % BGP Open message. Editorial Note: "Delay Open Timer" replaced with "Open Delay Timer" per issue 7. > Event20: BGPHeaderErr > > Definition: BGP message header is not valid. with % Event20: BGPHeaderErr % % Definition: An event is generated when a received BGP % message header is not valid. > Event21: BGPOpenMsgErr > > Definition: An BGP Open message has been received > with errors. with % Event21: BGPOpenMsgErr % % Definition: An event is generated when BGP Open message % with errors has been received. There haven't been any comments back on this text. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #16. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36) Event 19 - Definition Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace definition for Event 19 with the text in the discussion. Discussion: Siva propsosed we replace: > Definition: An event indicating that a valid Open=20 > Message has been successful=20 > established for a peer that is=20 > currently delaying the sending of an=20 > BGP Open message.=20 with: % Definition: An event indicating that a valid OPEN % Message has been received for a peer % that has a successfully established % transport connection and is currently % delaying the seending of a BGP open % message in Event 19. Sue agreed to the changes. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #17. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37) Event 22 - Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Replace Event 22 definition with the text from the discussion. Discussion: Siva began with observing: > Event22: Open collision discard > > Definition: An event generated administratively=20 > when a connection Collision has been=20 > detected while processing an incoming =20 > Open message. This connection has been=20 Isn't this event 'automatically' generated, since it is a system generated event ?=20 Sue replied that: response: How this generated is implementation specific. The "administratively" is to cover policy. Siva also proposed an editorial fix with: > Event 22 is an administrative could=20 > occur if FSM is implemented as two=20 > The word event is missing. How about % Event 22 is an automatic event that % could occur if FSM is implemented as two=20 Sue replied with this rewritten text: Event22: Open collision dump Definition: An event generated administratively when a connection collision has been detected while processing an incoming OPEN message and this connection has been selected to disconnected. See Section 6.8 for more information on collision detection. Event22 is an administrative based only implementation specific policy. This Event may occur if the FSM is implemented as two linked state machines. Sive agreed with this new text. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #18. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38) FSM Description - ConnectRetry Count ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: Leave the counter text alone, since it is used in peer oscillation and will be in the MIB. Discussion: Siva opened with this question: The Connect Retry count is updated by the FSM but never used. In the absence of peer oscillation damping, will this be used to stop connection establishment attempts after a certain maximum number ? <Sue> Yes, this is either implementation specific or is it based on the peer oscillation damping draft. </Sue> Can we include the use of this counter in some place ? <Sue> Connect retry counter 1) Will be utilized by the peer oscillation damping drat. 2) Will be included in bgp-4-mibv2-xx. I just check and I didn't find it. Do you still want text in the main? </Sue> To which Siva replied that he believes we can leave the main text alone. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #19. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39) Handling Event 7 (Auto Stop) to Idle State processing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Fix the text as indicated in the discussion. Discussion: Siva began with: The handling of Event 7 is missing from the Idle State processing. Can we add this ? How about replacing > An manual stop event (Event2) is ignored in the Idle state. with % Manual stop (Event 2) and Auto stop (Event 7) events are ignored % in the Idle state Sue replied that she would add the text. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #20. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40) Clearing the Connection Retry Timer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Do we remove the redundant resets from the text? Or leave them to allow action routines to be shared across multiple states? Discussion: Siva opend with the observation: There are a few sections where the FSM draft states that the Connection Retry timer needs to be reset, wheras the conenct retry timer had been cleared prior to entering that state. We can remove these instructions to clear the connect retry timer. List of places where the connect retry timer need not be cleared a) Handling of Event 19 in the Connect State b) Handling of Events 12 in the Active State c) All cases where it is refered to in the OpenSent, OpenConfirm and Established states Sue replied: Comment: 1) Does it hurt to have the connect retry timer cleared at these points, since it has already been cleared. I felt it eased the implementations to allow the action routines to be shared across as many states as possible. You can see this a bit more actively. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #21. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41) Handling of Event 14 in the Connect State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Is this really part of Issue 13.4? Discussion: Siva opened the discussion with: > If the transport connection receives an indication > that is invalid or unconfigured. [Event 14]: > - the TCP connection is rejected. I don't understand how we would get this event while in this state. Sue replied: See my earlier comments (1-10) on the connection state. It happens in implementations which track the TCP state more closely. I suggest that Event 14 become optional. Sue also suggested we fold this into the discussion about events 13-17, which is tracked in issue 13.4. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #22. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42) Handling events 20, 21 in the Connect State and Active State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Modify section 4.2 to avoid precluding sending NOTIFICATIONs in early states (text is in the discussion). Still need to clarify the FSM behavior. Discussion: Siva began this with: We need to consider the case where we receive events 20 (message header error) and 21 (Open message error) when the delay timer is running. Since the connection has been established at this point, we need to send a Notification message and then terminate the connection. To which Sue replied: Alternative comments: 1) We have not sent an Open statement. 2) Why do we have to send an Notification? I see no justification for it. Suggestion: Do you have implementations that send notification? Do you know of others that don't. Jeff saw this as indicative of an issue with section 4.2 the way it is currently written: >From section 4.2 of -18: : 4.2 OPEN Message Format : : After a TCP is established, the first message sent by each side is an : OPEN message. If the OPEN message is acceptable, a KEEPALIVE message : confirming the OPEN is sent back. Once the OPEN is confirmed, UPDATE, : KEEPALIVE, and NOTIFICATION messages may be exchanged. This text implies that NOTIFICATIONs can only be sent once we have sent an open and then a keepalive, generally meaning we're in the Established state. Anyone suggestions for modifying the wording? Section 6.1 (Message header error) is one situation that implies that a NOTIFICATION can be sent without sending even an OPEN message. Note that since the base FSM implies that we send an OPEN message immediately when we have a completed trasnport connection, we SHOULD be in at least OpenSent. However, the DelayOpen timer means that we MAY send a NOTIFICATION when we are in the Connect state. GateD, at least, will not send a NOTIFICATION without first sending an OPEN. We need to pick one: You can send NOTIFICATIONS before OPEN or before OPEN if the OpenDelay timer is running. However, we MUST fix the text above. Tom opined: A NOTIFICATION without a preceding OPEN is rather hard to interpret; it is the OPEN that gives the recipient what it needs to know about its potential peer (Version, AS number, ID, options etc) so it makes sense to send an OPEN even if it is followed by a NOTIFICATION to say goodbye :-( as opposed to a KEEPALIVE which says hello:-). But as ever, what is implemented? Yakov suggested these modifications to the text to resolve this: 1. Delete the last sentence in the above paragraph or 2. Delete "and NOTIFICATION" in the last sentence in the above paragraph Jeff replied that he prefered the first option, and that the second could be interpreted as NOTIFICAITONs not being legal, when, in fact, they may. So the text on the table to resolve this is: 4.2 OPEN Message Format After a TCP is established, the first message sent by each side is an OPEN message. If the OPEN message is acceptable, a KEEPALIVE message confirming the OPEN is sent back. However, this does not entirely clear up the original point about the FSM. If we reveive an error in Connect/Active, do we send a NOTIFY? Do we preface it with an OPEN, so that OPEN/NOTIFY are sent in immediete succession? This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #23. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43) Handling the default events in the Connect state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Discussion: Siva opened this with: The Open Delay timer [original: BGP Delay OpenTimers) needs to be cleared if it is running. How about adding this: % - If the ConnectRetry Timer is running % - Clear the Connect Retry timer % - Otherwise % - Clear the Open Delay timer [original: BGP Delay Open Timer] Sue replied that: By the default you mean the text: In response to any other events[Events 7-8, 10-11, 18, 20-27], the local system: "resets" to me implies stops and clears. I think the text is clear than the text above. ------------ Is this the replacement text you imply above: - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), - clears the Open Delay timer [original: BGP Delay timer] (sets to zero), - increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, - [optionally] performs bgp peer oscillation damping, and - goes to Idle text: Editor's note: various incarnations of "Open Delay timer" have been replaced with "Open Delay timer". See issue 7. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #24. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44) Handling Event 23 in Connect and OpenSent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Does the supplied state table suffice to meet this handling of Event 23? Discussion: This began with Siva saying: This is currently being handled in the default event processing section. However, we do not need to go through the peer oscillation damping process in this case. Can we change the wordings to reflect this, or move this out of peer oscillation damping processing ? Sue replied: 1) There is no default event handling process in the text, you will need to specify the text. 2) The state table below (hares-statemt-03.txt) states shows the changes ------------- Event 23 states: current Idle Connect Active Open-Sent Open-Cnf Establish ---------------------------------------------------- next state Idle Idle Idle Idle Idle Idle ----------------------------------------------- action V D D Y Y T ============================================== V - Indicate FSM errors and ignore. D - 1) resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), 2) drops the TCP connection, 2) releases all BGP resources, 3) increments the ConnectRetryCnt (connect retry count) by 1, 4) [optionally] performs the bgp peer oscillation damping, and Goes to Idle state. Y 1) resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), 2) Drops the TCP connection, 3) releases all BGP resources, 4) [optionally] This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #25. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45) Event 17 in the Connect state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Is the proposed text acceptable? Discussion: This began with Siva asking: > If the transport connection fails (timeout or transport > disconnect) [Event17], the local system: > - changes its state to Active. If the transport connection fails when the Open Delay timer [original: BGP Open Delay timer] is running, should we still be going into the Active state ? Sue replied refering to the disussion tracked in issue 13.4. Jeff responded that: In this particular case, I think the issue is separate from the issues for events 13-17 since this isn't particular to how deep the BGP implementation meddles in the TCP implementation. If we are in the Connect state, because we have an incoming transport connection that has completed, but we have the OpenDelay timer running and the transport connection is closed, we can simply drop into Active after resetting the ConnectRetry timer and clearing the OpenDelay timer (if set/exists). In the case of an unconfigured peer, we can discard the FSM instance. Tom replied that he agreed with this. Tom then proposed this text: If the TCP connection fails[Event 17] and the Open Delay timer is running, the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - clears the Open Delay timer - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes its state to Active. If the TCP connection fails [Event17] and the Open Delay timer is not running, the local system: - drops the TCP connection, - releases all BGP resources, - sets ConnectRetryCnt (the connect retry count) to zero - resets the connect retry timer (sets to zero), and - goes to Idle state. to replace If the TCP connection fails (timeout or disconnect) [Event17], the local system: - restarts the connect retry timer, - continues to listen for a connection that may be initiated by the remote BGP peer, and - changes its state to Active. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #26. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46) Handling of Event 17 in Active state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: See issue 13.4, this issue closed in favor of that one. Discussion: This began with Siva saying: We should now move into Idle state. Can we add % - Goes to Idle state Sue replied that she thought this should be bundled in with the issue tracked in 13.4. Since no one objected, this issue has been closed in favor of that one. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #27. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47) Handling of Event 19 in Active state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Which of the texts is prefered? Discussion: This began with Siva suggesting: > - Set the Hold timer to a large value (4 minutes), Since OPEN messages have been exchanged, can we change this to % - If the negotiated Hold time is not 0, set the Hold time to % - the negotiated value Sue replied that: The text in Active and Open Sent needs to be the same. The text in Open Sent is: - sets the Hold timer according to the negotiated value (see section 4.2), and Which text do you prefer? This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #28. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48) Handling of Event 2 in Active state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Clear up procedure for handling Event 2. Discussion: Siva opened with: > A manual stop event[Event2], the local system: > - Sends a notification with a Cease, > - drops the Transport connection These two actions are possible only if a transport connection had already been established. How about changing the text to % - If a transport connection had been successfully established % - Send a Notification with a Cease % - Drop the Transport Connection Sue counter suggested: A manual stop event [Event 2], the local system - Drop the TCP connection, - Release all BGP resources, - resets the connection retry timer [sets to zero], - goes to Idle. Jeff replied: I'm rather confused. Under exactly what circumstances can we be in the Active state and have an active TCP connection at all? Ditto for having any BGP resources? Going to Idle is fine. Tom offered this example: eg start with passive flag, TCP SYN received, SYN-ACK sent, ACK received, Delay Open flag set and there we are. Most events are now possible either from a well-implemented remote peer or a badly implemented remote peer. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #29. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49) Default Event handling in Active state ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: No routes in active. Discussion: Siva began with: To ensure consistencey with E2 handling, can we add % - If any BGP Routes exist, delete the routes Sue replied: Comment: Yakov and Jeff noted, there are no routes in Active state. Since there were no responses disagreeing, we'll consider this closed unless someone wants to open it back up. This was discussed in the "Comments 21-30" thread: Comment #30. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50) Clearing Hold timer in OpenSent, OpenConfirm and Established State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: This issue is addressed in the "Clear BGP resources" Discussion: This began with Siva stating: In all event handling where we go to Idle state, we need to clear the Hold Timer as well. Sue replied that: issue resolve one way last Jan - March Clearing of keep alive timer included in Clear BGP resources No response to this yet, but since this seems to be resolved it is at consensus unless someone objects. This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #31. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51) Clearing Keepalive timer in OpenConfirm and Established State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: This issue is addressed in the "Clear BGP resources" Discussion: This began with Siva stating: In all event handling where we go to Idle state, we need to clear the Keepalive Timer as well. Sue replied that: issue resolve one way last Jan - March Clearing of keep alive timer included in Clear BGP resources No response to this yet, but since this seems to be resolved it is at consensus unless someone objects. This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #32. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52) Handling Event 18 in the OpenSent state (Keepalive Timer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: At what point do we start the Keepalive timer. Discussion: This began with Siva asking: Why do we start the Keepalive timer at this stage ? Isn't it sufficient to do so when we move into Established state ? Sue replied: An earlier comment from Tom (and you) requested the following: <---Open [Open sent state] Open--> [Event 18] <---Open <---Keepalive [Action from Event 18 in Open Sent] [Open Confirm] Keepalive -> [Event 25] [established] What do implementations do? We'll have to query implementations. Jeff added: I'm assuming the second OPEN going from right to left is a typo. If it isn't, thats a FSM error to the peer on the left. Theoretically, an implementation that utilizes its keepalive timer to send the first keepalive to transition to Established is still interoperable. However: o Keepalives can be disabled by negotiating hold time of zero o We really shouldn't need to restart the Keepalive timer. If there is a delay in the keepalive that transitions from OpenConfirm to Established, its due to the transport connection. It should be reliable and it *should* get through. If it doesn't, there's other problems and the hold timer for the peer on the right should do the Right Thing and drop the connection. > What do implementations do? We'll have to query implementations. GateD at least waits to enter the Established state prior to starting the KeepAlive timer. Tom also added: My comment was that if we do not send a KeepAlive (and start the KeepAlive timer), on exiting from Active with Event 19 to OpenConfirm then we never will and the connection will die. Open Confirm state means valid Open received so we must send a KeepAlive to acknowledge the Open (as pointed out in Jeff's other posting) and we never do it in OpenConfirm state itself (unless the KeepAlive timer expires which it cannot because we have not started it). So for me, OpenSent state Event 18 was and is correct, sending the KeepAlive without which the connection goes no further and Active state Event 19 needs to be brought into line. To say that the timer is started when entering Established state is fine except for a slight problem; we have no way in this FSM of defining actions that are taken on entering a state, only actions to be taken on leaving another state so that is why the KeepAlive actions need to be where they are (or are not in the case of Active state Event 19). This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #33. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53) Established State MIB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: MIB references pulled in favor of having them in the MIB document. See issue 8. Discussion: This began with Siva asking: Some event handling in the Established state do not set the MIB Reason when handling an event that causes an error. Can we add this ? Sue replied that we have pulled the MIB wording from the FSM. See issue 8. This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #34. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54) State impact of not supporting Optional Events ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: Should we develop the text? If so we need text. Discussion: Siva stated that: For the events whose status is optional, can we state the impact of not supporting them (in terms of any interoperability issues). I understand that most of the optional events will not have such an impact; but a clarification statement for the optional events would benefit new implementors. Sue responded: Much of the support of optional parameters depends on policy. I could put a short note about the optional events and parameters as part of 8.1.5 or 8.2.1.3 I think it fits better in 8.1.5. Optional: Events: 3-8, 12, 13-14[my suggestion] 19, 22 Timers: Idle Hold Timer Open Delay Timer Required flags for optional parameters: Open Delay Flag BGP Stop Flap Sue said she would try to work up more if it is agreed that this is on the right track. This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #35. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55) New DelayOpen State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: No Summary: We've chosen not to reopen the debate about adding a DelayOpen State to the FSM. Discussion: Siva began with asking: Is delaying the sending of an OPEN message a standrad industry practice ? Also, in the FSM, this has been handled by practically implementing a sub-state each, within the CONNECT and ACTIVE states. Won't the FSM look more simple if we just had a new DelayOpen state that we could move into ? Sue responded that this was something we have tried to do before, but that it spawned some degree of rabid response on both sides. Given our current mandate to stick with what is implemented, it is probably best not to reopen this debate. Unless someone badly wants to reopen this debate, the issue is at Consenus. This was discussed in the "Comments 30-36" thread: Comment #36. --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Changelog-v2.txt" CHANGELOG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- v2.0 to v2.1 2003-01-08 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Updated: 2) MUST/SHOULD Capitalization 13.2) FSM Missing Next States - Event 14 (Connect State) 13.4) FSM Missing Next States - Event 13-17 (TCP Connection) 13.5) FSM Missing Next States - Event 17 (Connect State) 13.6) FSM Missing Next States - Event 18 (Open Confirm) 15) FSM - Consistent FSM Event Names 17) Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) 24) Events 3, 5, 6 & 7 Give Examples 26) Event 4 & 5 - bgp_stop_flap option 33) Event 13 & 14 - Valid Addresses & Ports 45) Event 17 in the Connect state Moved to Consensus: 13.5) FSM Missing Next States - Event 17 (Connect State) 15) FSM - Consistent FSM Event Names 21) Session Attributes - IdleHold Timer 22) Specify New Attributes (Accept Connections/Peer Oscillation Damping) --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY-- 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 TAA26748 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:45:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id AB60D912B0; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:44:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 749DD912B1; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:44:25 -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 529F3912B0 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:44:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 388855DF7D; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:44:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBFD5DF23 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA28843; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:40:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:40:52 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org> Cc: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu, Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com>, Matt Richardson <mrr@nexthop.com>, jgs@cisco.com, jhass@nexthop.com Subject: Re: BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers Message-ID: <20030120164052.D24846@demiurge.exodus.net> References: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB58@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> <200301202248.RAA57476@workhorse.fictitious.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200301202248.RAA57476@workhorse.fictitious.org>; from curtis@fictitious.org on Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 05:48:27PM -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Sue, I agree with Curtis on this, if someone objects, I'll open an issue and we can track the discussion. If you feel strongly that it should be on the issues list anyway, let me know and I'll put it there. Andrew > In message <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB58@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.co > m>, "Susan Hares" writes: > > Curtis: > > > > Thanks for the input. It is indeed "connection collision". > > I've fixed the text. > > > > [I think this is a new issue for Andrew to track] > > > > Sue > > > Sue, > > If there is no argument against this maybe we can just call it a minor > editorial change and not bother tracking it as an issue. > > Curtis > > > > > All fine except there is no "call collision". Perhaps you mean > > "connection collision". There seem to be 4 instances of "call > > collision" that should be replaced with "connection collision" in the > > draft. > > > > > > Curtis 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 SAA20760 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id AAC9C912A4; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:25:58 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7E7D7912A5; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:25:58 -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 37A65912A4 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:25:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1C8085DF1B; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:25:57 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F495DF17 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:25:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0KNPta67783 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:25:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0KNPnC67770 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:25:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: BGP-19: Issue 33 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:25:49 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617AE@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BGP-19: Issue 33 Thread-Index: AcLA20QoZ+UrLnEsQt6SzQ1Zllj5zA== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <idr@merit.edu>, <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id SAA20760 Siva: Can you sugest some text on the destination port that needs to be added to Event 13 and 14? Sue ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) Event 13 & 14 - Valid Addresses & Ports ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: No Consensus Change: Potentially Summary: We're at consensus for most of this, but we need to agree on the destination port portion of this. Discussion: With regard to Event 13 & 14, Siva raised questions about: 1) What does it mean to validate a port, and 2) Should we state what we consider an invalid IP addres to be? Sue replied that this is local policy and is implementation dependant. Siva agreed regarding the source port & IP address, but disagreed about the destination port. He argued that we need to know the destination port for interoperability. This was discussed in the "Comments 11-20" thread: Comment #14. 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 SAA19810 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 0A78A912A3; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:29 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D0497912A4; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:28 -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 487D8912A3 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2ADAA5DF3C; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:27 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DFA95DDE1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0KNDPJ67525 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0KNDJC67511 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Issue 26 - Do you want me to add Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:19 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB5A@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 26 - Do you want me to add Thread-Index: AcLA2YUDv7arZNH7TbGFQj+oNTjGqQ== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "siva@ctd.hcltech.com" <'siva@ctd.hcltech.com'> Cc: <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id SAA19810 Siva: At the bottom is the re-cap of issue 26. Below is line is the text for adding option 3. Please confirm if you wish to add option #3. If you do, we have consensus on this topic. Sue =========== Addition Option #3 =============== To add #3, I would add an Event 7b with the following state machine Event7b: Automatic start with passive TCP flag and bgp_stop_flap flag set Definition: Local system automatically starts the BGP Peer connection with passive TCP flag and BGP Peer oscillation enabled. The passive TCP flag indicates that this peer will listen prior to establishing a BGP connection. The bgp_stop_flag flag indicates that this peer will damp persistent oscillations of peer connections (connect-disconnect-connect). The exact method of damping persistent peer oscillations is left up to the implementation and is outside of the scope of this document. Status: Optional depending on local system The state machine would be # Event Idle Connect Active Open Open Estab. sent Confirm ==================================================================== 7b Auto See peer Connect Active Open Open Estab. start & damp /Ignore /Ignore Sent/ Confirm/ /Ignore bgp flap draft/ Ignore Ignore stop on F-2 & passive [note 1] F-2 If no bgp flap damping is engaged, the local sytem will: 1) Restart ConnectRetry timer (with initial value) 2) Listen for a valid remote TCP connection ---------------- This began with Siva asking: Won't a variant of this with bgp_stop_flap option set be requried ? We can also achieve the same by using the bgp_stop-Flap option as a flag that is provided as an input to the state machine. Siva later clarified this to include: We already have Event 3 - Automatic Start Event 5 - Automatic start with bgp_stop_flap option set To make things consistent, shouldn't we either a) Add 3 new events : 1) Manual start with bgp_stop flap option set 2) Manual start with passive TCP establishment and bgp_stop_flap option set 3) Automatic start with passive TCP establishment and bgp_stop_flap option set or b) Remove Event 6, and rely on a flag to tell us wether peer flap damping is to be performed for the session or not. Sue said she prefered option A. And stated that #1 & #2 are infeasible, but that we need to add #3. 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 RAA18107 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:52:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 201779129C; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:50:34 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DE5079129E; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:50:33 -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 6BDAE9129C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:50:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 554245DF11; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:50:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538CA5DDE1 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:50:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA57476; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:48:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200301202248.RAA57476@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> Cc: curtis@fictitious.org, idr@merit.edu, "Russ White" <ruwhite@cisco.com>, "Matt Richardson" <mrr@nexthop.com>, jgs@cisco.com, jhass@nexthop.com Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:28:36 EST." <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB58@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:48:27 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB58@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.co m>, "Susan Hares" writes: > Curtis: > > Thanks for the input. It is indeed "connection collision". > I've fixed the text. > > [I think this is a new issue for Andrew to track] > > Sue Sue, If there is no argument against this maybe we can just call it a minor editorial change and not bother tracking it as an issue. Curtis > All fine except there is no "call collision". Perhaps you mean > "connection collision". There seem to be 4 instances of "call > collision" that should be replaced with "connection collision" in the > draft. > > > Curtis 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 RAA17399 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:43:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 417DA9129B; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:43:00 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C7CC49129C; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:42:59 -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 58EE59129A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:42:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 44C695DF3C; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:42:58 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0895DF30 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:42:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0KMguQ66748 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:42:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0KMglC66722 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:42:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: FW: Issue 25 - this is really issue 24 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:42:47 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617AB@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 25 Thread-Index: AcLA1OdtqT5sRXr4RmKkU46wH4TqzgAACoVQ From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id RAA17399 Siva: This is regarding issue 24 instead of 25. 25 is closed. Sue > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hares > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:40 PM > To: 'siva@ctd.hcltech.com' > Cc: 'idr@merit.edu' > Subject: Issue 25 > > Siva: > > I believe we have consensus on issue 25. I've added the > example for an automatic stop to the event description. > > New text: > > > Event7: Automatic stop > > Definition: Local system automatically stops the > BGP connection. > > An example of an automatic stop event is > exceeding the number of prefixes for a given > peer and the local system automatically > disconnecting the peer. > > > Status: Optional depending on local system > > Please confirm that we have consensus on this issue. > > Sue 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 RAA17193 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:40:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CDFD891299; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:40:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 957419129A; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:40:25 -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 4072C91299 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:40:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 309075DF11; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:40:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFE65DF07 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:40:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0KMeMk66616 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:40:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0KMeHC66602 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:40:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Issue 25 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:40:16 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB59@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 25 Thread-Index: AcLA1OdtqT5sRXr4RmKkU46wH4Tqzg== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <siva@ctd.hcltech.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id RAA17193 Siva: I believe we have consensus on issue 25. I've added the example for an automatic stop to the event description. New text: Event7: Automatic stop Definition: Local system automatically stops the BGP connection. An example of an automatic stop event is exceeding the number of prefixes for a given peer and the local system automatically disconnecting the peer. Status: Optional depending on local system Please confirm that we have consensus on this issue. Sue 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 RAA16124 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 129E291297; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:28:59 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D466491299; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:28:58 -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 4BDC491297 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:28:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 35F0A5DF30; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:28:51 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC26F5DF2B for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:28:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0KMSov66162 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:28:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0KMSaC66127 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:28:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:28:36 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB58@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers Thread-Index: AcLAwC6JAhzRKUkGQque4osClrxuAQAEmM4g From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <curtis@fictitious.org> Cc: <idr@merit.edu>, "Russ White" <ruwhite@cisco.com>, "Matt Richardson" <mrr@nexthop.com>, <jgs@cisco.com>, <jhass@nexthop.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id RAA16124 Curtis: Thanks for the input. It is indeed "connection collision". I've fixed the text. [I think this is a new issue for Andrew to track] Sue -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@fictitious.org] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 3:10 PM To: Susan Hares Cc: idr@merit.edu; Russ White; Matt Richardson; jgs@cisco.com; jhass@nexthop.com Subject: Re: BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers In message <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6179E@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.co m>, "Susan Hares" writes: > > The following state machine issues were queried to the list between 12/2 - 12 > /20 > > The following issues need input from developers: > > 13.2, 13.4, 13.6 > > ======================================================== > > 13.2 - Connect state, Event 14th > > Event 14: > receipt of a valid TCP connection with an invalid or unconfigur > ed peer > > > Should the peer: > 1) Treat it as a valid response, and enters the active state > to watch for a another TCP connection with a valid peer. > > 2) treat it as an invalid response, reject the connection and s > ee if a valid > configured one comes iwthin the connect timer's window. > > Without further input, I will select option 2. > > 13.4 TCP connection events in state machine > > Do the implementors require Events 13 - 17 in the State machine > ? > > Event 13 - TCP connection valid indication > Event 14 - TCP connection invalid indication > Event 15 - TCP connection request acknowedged > Event 16 - TCP connection confirmed > Event 17 - TCP connection fails > > Choice 1: Events 13 - 17 are mandatory > Choice 2: Event 13 and Event 14 be optional, and Events 15 - 1 > 7 be mandator. > > If no one objects, we will use Choice 2. > > 13.6 FSM Missing Next States > > In the Open Confirm state, a valid Open message [Event 22] is r > eceived. > The BGP Peer connection is check to ee if there is a collision > per > section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to the ca > ll collision, > the local system will drop the call by: > > - sending a NOTIFICATION with a CEASE, > - resets the Connect timer (to zero), > - releases all BGP resources > (this includes stopping the Open Delay Timer an > d reseting it to zero), > - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1 (connect retry co > unt), and > - optionally performs a BGP peer oscilation damping pro > cessing, and > - enters the Idle State. > > Implementors need to verify if this text and the text for Event > 22 allows all implementors > to perform the necessary Call Collision actions. > > If no objects, we will use this text. > > > Thank you for your help. > > Sue Hares All fine except there is no "call collision". Perhaps you mean "connection collision". There seem to be 4 instances of "call collision" that should be replaced with "connection collision" in the draft. Curtis 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 PAA05432 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:12:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3A03D9128E; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:11:57 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EB8609128F; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:11:56 -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 8A4CA9128E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:11:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 69C175DE5A; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:11:55 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (workhorse.fictitious.org [209.150.1.230]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450345DE3C for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:11:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA55902; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:09:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200301202009.PAA55902@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu, "Russ White" <ruwhite@cisco.com>, "Matt Richardson" <mrr@nexthop.com>, jgs@cisco.com, jhass@nexthop.com Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:54:16 EST." <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6179E@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:09:53 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk In message <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6179E@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.co m>, "Susan Hares" writes: > > The following state machine issues were queried to the list between 12/2 - 12 > /20 > > The following issues need input from developers: > > 13.2, 13.4, 13.6 > > ======================================================== > > 13.2 - Connect state, Event 14th > > Event 14: > receipt of a valid TCP connection with an invalid or unconfigur > ed peer > > > Should the peer: > 1) Treat it as a valid response, and enters the active state > to watch for a another TCP connection with a valid peer. > > 2) treat it as an invalid response, reject the connection and s > ee if a valid > configured one comes iwthin the connect timer's window. > > Without further input, I will select option 2. > > 13.4 TCP connection events in state machine > > Do the implementors require Events 13 - 17 in the State machine > ? > > Event 13 - TCP connection valid indication > Event 14 - TCP connection invalid indication > Event 15 - TCP connection request acknowedged > Event 16 - TCP connection confirmed > Event 17 - TCP connection fails > > Choice 1: Events 13 - 17 are mandatory > Choice 2: Event 13 and Event 14 be optional, and Events 15 - 1 > 7 be mandator. > > If no one objects, we will use Choice 2. > > 13.6 FSM Missing Next States > > In the Open Confirm state, a valid Open message [Event 22] is r > eceived. > The BGP Peer connection is check to ee if there is a collision > per > section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to the ca > ll collision, > the local system will drop the call by: > > - sending a NOTIFICATION with a CEASE, > - resets the Connect timer (to zero), > - releases all BGP resources > (this includes stopping the Open Delay Timer an > d reseting it to zero), > - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1 (connect retry co > unt), and > - optionally performs a BGP peer oscilation damping pro > cessing, and > - enters the Idle State. > > Implementors need to verify if this text and the text for Event > 22 allows all implementors > to perform the necessary Call Collision actions. > > If no objects, we will use this text. > > > Thank you for your help. > > Sue Hares All fine except there is no "call collision". Perhaps you mean "connection collision". There seem to be 4 instances of "call collision" that should be replaced with "connection collision" in the draft. Curtis 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 OAA03608 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:49:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4AC9A9128D; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:49:22 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1A11A9128B; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:49:22 -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 96CB09128D for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:47:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 730725DE3C; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:47:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730795DDA6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:47:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0KJlXv62451 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:47:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0KJlUC62444 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:47:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: BGP Draft 19 - Close open items 22 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:47:29 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6AB55@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BGP Draft 19 - Close open items 22 Thread-Index: AcLAvMRXO08fom7eRPWTzlpQ1+ZxLQ== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id OAA03608 Please consider items 22 closed with the following final text: Optional parameters that may be supported either per connection or per implementation: 1) Delay Open flag 2) Delay Open Timer 3) Perform automatic start flag 4) Passive TCP establishment flag 5) BGP stop_peer_flag flag 6) Idle Hold timer 7) Perform automatic stop flag 8) Perform Collision detect in Establish mode flag Sue 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 OAA02742 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:39:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6272A9128A; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:38:54 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 300E89128B; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:38:54 -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 CF2269128A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:38:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B15255DE3C; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:38:52 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C7D5DDFA for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:38:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0KJcpB62291 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:38:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0KJcmC62284 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:38:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Draft 19 - issue #21 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:38:48 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617A2@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft 19 - issue #21 Thread-Index: AcLAu41TMYK5qURSQ7ysdVmqNGeneg== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id OAA02742 I will accept the new text for the following total text: Event8: Idle hold timer expires Definition: An event generated when the Idle Hold Timer expires indicating that the session has completed a back-off period to prevent bgp peer oscillation. The Idle Hold Timer is only used when the persistent peer oscillation damping function is enabled. Implementations not implementing the presistent peer oscillation damping functions may not have the Idle Hold Timer. Status: Optional Sue Hares 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 OAA01373 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:21:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1C70391207; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:21:12 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D85AC9128A; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:21:11 -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 8104991207 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:21:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 643095DDEE; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:21:10 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0F35DD8C for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:21:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0KJL9561779 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:21:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0KJL3C61766 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:21:03 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Issue 15 - Consistent FSM Event Names Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:21:03 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA617A1@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 15 - Consistent FSM Event Names Thread-Index: AcLAuRKETyHBiamWQ4GH8je8Z+cXiQ== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id OAA01373 Tom: I will accept the text you proposed for the Event names. I will update the FSM text to include your changes. We'll consider issue 15 in consensus. I've fixed the text.\ Sue 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 NAA29205 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:54:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8857091288; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:54:28 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 57F429128A; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:54:28 -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 D28F991288 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:54:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B3AB05DDB4; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:54:26 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222A75DDA6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:54:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0KIsPH61038 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:54:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0KIsHC61018 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:54:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:54:16 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6179E@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BGP draft-19 - FSM input needed from developers Thread-Index: AcLAtVUjiPCzgrDZRDmaC058A4qPeg== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <idr@merit.edu> Cc: "Russ White" <ruwhite@cisco.com>, "Matt Richardson" <mrr@nexthop.com>, <jgs@cisco.com>, <jhass@nexthop.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id NAA29205 The following state machine issues were queried to the list between 12/2 - 12/20 The following issues need input from developers: 13.2, 13.4, 13.6 ======================================================== 13.2 - Connect state, Event 14th Event 14: receipt of a valid TCP connection with an invalid or unconfigured peer Should the peer: 1) Treat it as a valid response, and enters the active state to watch for a another TCP connection with a valid peer. 2) treat it as an invalid response, reject the connection and see if a valid configured one comes iwthin the connect timer's window. Without further input, I will select option 2. 13.4 TCP connection events in state machine Do the implementors require Events 13 - 17 in the State machine? Event 13 - TCP connection valid indication Event 14 - TCP connection invalid indication Event 15 - TCP connection request acknowedged Event 16 - TCP connection confirmed Event 17 - TCP connection fails Choice 1: Events 13 - 17 are mandatory Choice 2: Event 13 and Event 14 be optional, and Events 15 - 17 be mandator. If no one objects, we will use Choice 2. 13.6 FSM Missing Next States In the Open Confirm state, a valid Open message [Event 22] is received. The BGP Peer connection is check to ee if there is a collision per section 6.8. If this connection is to be dropped due to the call collision, the local system will drop the call by: - sending a NOTIFICATION with a CEASE, - resets the Connect timer (to zero), - releases all BGP resources (this includes stopping the Open Delay Timer and reseting it to zero), - increments the ConnectRetryCnt by 1 (connect retry count), and - optionally performs a BGP peer oscilation damping processing, and - enters the Idle State. Implementors need to verify if this text and the text for Event 22 allows all implementors to perform the necessary Call Collision actions. If no objects, we will use this text. Thank you for your help. Sue Hares 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 HAA00615 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:37:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2C2699123B; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:36:45 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E001C9125C; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:36:44 -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 6A2919123B for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4471F5E0CB; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:36:43 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net (shockwave.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD125DE3A for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:36:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from tom3 (userbl95.uk.uudial.com [62.188.144.202]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C17116000D3C; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:36:39 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <003c01c2c080$6659c020$0301a8c0@tom3> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com>, <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> Cc: <idr@merit.edu>, <andrewl@cw.net> Subject: Re: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:33:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yes I withdraw 13.5 Tom Petch nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com> To: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net>; Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu>; andrewl@cw.net <andrewl@cw.net> Date: 20 January 2003 04:51 Subject: RE: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) Tom: Just to be sure. You are withdrawing issue 13.5. Please confirm on the list. I am trying to settle FSM issues this week. Thanks, Sue -----Original Message----- From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net [mailto:andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 6:19 PM To: Tom Petch Cc: idr@merit.edu; andrewl@cw.net Subject: Re: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) That is what I thought. It will be updated in the next revision. Andrew On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 11:10:30PM -0000, Tom Petch wrote: > Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu > Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > To: <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> > Cc: <idr@merit.edu>, <andrewl@cw.net> > Subject: Re: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 23:10:30 -0000 > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 > Precedence: bulk > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=6.0 > tests=AWL,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,SUBJECT_IS_LIST, > USER_AGENT_OE > version=2.43 > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2002 23:11:20.0640 (UTC) FILETIME=[9ACA4400:01C2AAD8] > > Oh dear a typo I do mean 13.5 should go. > > Tom Petch > nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> > To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > Cc: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu>; andrewl@cw.net <andrewl@cw.net> > Date: 23 December 2002 19:40 > Subject: Re: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) > > > >Easy enough to do that. To clarify, in your last paragraph, do you > >mean 13.4 should go in addition to 13.5, or was the 13.4 a typo? > > > >Andrew > > > >On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 02:36:26PM +0000, Tom Petch wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:36:26 +0000 > >> From: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > >> Subject: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) > >> To: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net, idr@merit.edu > >> Cc: andrewl@cw.net > >> Reply-to: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > >> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 > >> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 > >> X-Priority: 3 > >> X-MSMail-priority: Normal > >> > >> I think this issue SHOULD be administratively terminated. > >> > >> It relates to Connect state Event 17 (TCP connection fails) and I > am > >> credited with raising it; in fact, the issue I raised was missing > next > >> state for Active state event 17 and this has now been subsumed into > >> 13.4 (but note that 13.4 does not explicitly say Active state - I > know > >> it should because I raised that issue too). I will ensure it does > not > >> get lost from any resolution of 13.4. > >> > >> And Connect state event 17 does appear as part of issue 45 which > Siva > >> raised so I think that either way, 13.4 can go. > >> > >> Tom Petch > >> nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com > >> 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 XAA03449 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D821391268; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:51:00 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A7D0D91275; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:51:00 -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 3C61391268 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 25A675DFC3; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:50:59 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7F35DF7A for <idr@merit.edu>; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:50:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0K4ov448837 for idr@merit.edu; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:50:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0K4ojC48810 for <idr@merit.edu>; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:50:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:50:45 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6178E@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) Thread-Index: AcKq2jkM8iOXk94YSS29C8rsDReihQVY1Miw From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net>, "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Cc: <idr@merit.edu>, <andrewl@cw.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id XAA03449 Tom: Just to be sure. You are withdrawing issue 13.5. Please confirm on the list. I am trying to settle FSM issues this week. Thanks, Sue -----Original Message----- From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net [mailto:andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 6:19 PM To: Tom Petch Cc: idr@merit.edu; andrewl@cw.net Subject: Re: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) That is what I thought. It will be updated in the next revision. Andrew On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 11:10:30PM -0000, Tom Petch wrote: > Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu > Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu > Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > To: <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> > Cc: <idr@merit.edu>, <andrewl@cw.net> > Subject: Re: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 23:10:30 -0000 > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 > Precedence: bulk > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=6.0 > tests=AWL,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,SUBJECT_IS_LIST, > USER_AGENT_OE > version=2.43 > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2002 23:11:20.0640 (UTC) FILETIME=[9ACA4400:01C2AAD8] > > Oh dear a typo I do mean 13.5 should go. > > Tom Petch > nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net <andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net> > To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > Cc: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu>; andrewl@cw.net <andrewl@cw.net> > Date: 23 December 2002 19:40 > Subject: Re: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) > > > >Easy enough to do that. To clarify, in your last paragraph, do you > >mean 13.4 should go in addition to 13.5, or was the 13.4 a typo? > > > >Andrew > > > >On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 02:36:26PM +0000, Tom Petch wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:36:26 +0000 > >> From: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > >> Subject: 13.5 in BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.0 (Draft-19) > >> To: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net, idr@merit.edu > >> Cc: andrewl@cw.net > >> Reply-to: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> > >> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 > >> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 > >> X-Priority: 3 > >> X-MSMail-priority: Normal > >> > >> I think this issue SHOULD be administratively terminated. > >> > >> It relates to Connect state Event 17 (TCP connection fails) and I > am > >> credited with raising it; in fact, the issue I raised was missing > next > >> state for Active state event 17 and this has now been subsumed into > >> 13.4 (but note that 13.4 does not explicitly say Active state - I > know > >> it should because I raised that issue too). I will ensure it does > not > >> get lost from any resolution of 13.4. > >> > >> And Connect state event 17 does appear as part of issue 45 which > Siva > >> raised so I think that either way, 13.4 can go. > >> > >> Tom Petch > >> nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com > >> 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 WAA00039 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:52:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 04B7491257; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:52:06 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id BE64C91258; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:52:05 -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 6332591257 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:52:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4802B5E07F; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:52:04 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65465DE2E for <idr@merit.edu>; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h0K3q2p48287 for idr@merit.edu; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:52:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.233]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0K3pvC48274 for <idr@merit.edu>; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:51:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from shares@nexthop.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: draft 19 - Issue 12 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:51:57 -0500 Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4EA6178D@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft 19 - Issue 12 Thread-Index: AcLAN0dc96/nrCudTZSIDeMfNM4j/g== From: "Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> To: <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>, <idr@merit.edu> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id WAA00039 On issue 12: Entering OpenConfirm/Adding "Stop Opendelay action" That eliminates most but not all of the possibilities I mentioned. I now believe we would need to add the action 'stop OpenDelay timer' for Connect state event 17 (currently defined as going to Active) event 9 (stays in Connect state) in order to stop event 19 in Open Sent This was discussed in the "bgp 18 WG Last Call fsm missing keepalive" thread. And also in the "Event 19 in Open Sent state was Re: bgp18 WG Last Call fsm missing keepalive" thread. ================ I accept the comments from Tom Petch. Mark issue 12 has having consensus. Sue 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 QAA28889 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:38:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5CB7C91263; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:38:28 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2858F91266; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:38:28 -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 0E1D591263 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:38:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D441F5DE76; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:38:26 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2275DE08 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:38:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA17454; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:35:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:35:13 -0800 From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net To: Mireille Shammas <mireille.shammas@alcatel.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Aggregation and MED on the issues list Message-ID: <20030116133513.J16455@demiurge.exodus.net> References: <3E241B69.830E4255@alcatel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3E241B69.830E4255@alcatel.com>; from mireille.shammas@alcatel.com on Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 09:15:05AM -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Mireille, I thought this issue was addressed in issue 65 from the v1.x lists. I've included the issue listing below. Andrew > A while back when draft-18 was being reviewed an issue was raised > regarding section 9.2.2.2 > > "Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT be > aggregated." > > This issue was not tracked down by issues list. > > Many people have argued that this rule could be relaxed to SHOULD NOT > since many venders don't comply. I understand that this can be harmful > in some situations. However, The correct behavior for aggregating > routes with the same MED was never clarified. For example, what is > correct behavior if we have 4 prefixes contributing to an aggregate > address and 2 of them have MED x and the other 2 have MED y. Should we > aggregate at all in this situations? > > I think this issue needs to be added to the list to get its full > diligence. > > Mireille ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status: Consensus Change: Yes Summary: Clear up the text on aggregating with a MED. See the discussion for the text. Discussion: There is a proposal to relax this statement: "Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP." In his reply to the original mail, Curtis asserted that we should leave the MED rules alone, but perhaps we could relax the NEXT_HOP statement. This was revisited in the "aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP" thread. Yakov suggested we replace: Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical: MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP. If the aggregation occurs as part of the update process, routes with different NEXT_HOP values can be aggregated when announced through an external BGP session. Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, according to the following rules: with: Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated. Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, according to the following rules: NEXT_HOP: When aggregating routes that have different NEXT_HOP attribute, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the aggregated route SHALL identify an interface on the router that performs the aggregation. This met with agreement. Dimitry asked if the "Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DESC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated." sentance was unnecessary since it should be a matter of local policy. Jeff replied that it has been mentioned that removing this stipulation can cause routing loops. We are at consensus with this issue. 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 WAA03346 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:52:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 22A5D91259; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:51:42 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E47AD912A2; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:51:41 -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 A5ABA91259 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8B57A5DF8E; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:51:40 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from earthquake.proficient.net (fe0-0-access-1-sfo.proficient.net [65.209.247.5]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 316385DDB7 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from riga ([10.0.0.25]) by earthquake.proficient.net over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:51:34 -0800 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:51:27 -0800 (PST) From: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> X-X-Sender: jfletcher@riga To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@cisco.com> Cc: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>, <idr@merit.edu> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt In-Reply-To: <p05200f0fba4a46a56655@[192.168.42.10]> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301141852100.12193-100000@riga> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2003 03:51:34.0233 (UTC) FILETIME=[658F7490:01C2BC49] Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, John G. Scudder wrote: John, thank you; I'll embed a few as well. > Hi Justin, > > Comments in line below. > > >If in draft-walton-bgp-add-paths all nexthops are included with each route > >adertisement this may result in an increase in the volume of data to > >transferred and processed during normal operations. > > It was certainly not our intent that all routes ("paths") for a given > NLRI be readvertised whenever one single path changes. I take it > this is what you're referring to when you say "nexthops"? Precisely, and thank you for the clarification. Semantics can be a little tricky :-) > >If a change in > >availability of a single undertised nexthop is indicated by setting both > >the FirstPath and LastPath bits, this isn't an issue. The statement that > >"any paths received before this one MUST be removed by the receiver" leads > >to some questions of interpretation. > > - Our draft (like yours) advertises multiple _routes_, not just nexthops. Right; just semantics. > - Any single route may be advertised or withdrawn without affecting the > other routes for the same NLRI. > - The FirstPath flag provides implicit-withdraw semantics for the whole > batch of paths for that NLRI. Sounds like that's what you're concerned > about? Sending FirstPath is optional. Yes. I belive that ability is required to remove an entire prefix, to add or remove a single route for the same NLRI or to change that route to/from unadvertised to advertised. > >The addition of configuration options and a receive capability allows > >additional flexibility in deployment. > > I don't think there's a deep difference between the two proposals in > terms of configurability, which is fundamentally an implementation > issue. Clearly an add-path implementation can (and perhaps should) > default to working in plain-old-BGP mode. Leaving this up to the > implementor is more to my taste, though. I chose to formalize the "perhaps should" but can go either way. > It's not clear to me what the deployment case is for splitting the > capability's semantics into Tx/Rx. If there is a need, however, we'd > be happy to add it to add-path. I believe that this may simplify both processing and implementation; it would also allow a router to operate in a limited or test mode where the additional information is received and processed without being required to advertise all paths. > >Finally, it's a minimalist approach; there are no changes to the protocol > >format itself. > > Here are a few concerns I have about your approach: > > - I don't see a way to withdraw a path. Lack of an easy way to withdraw > paths is a key reason why we decided not to pursue a similar attribute- > based approach when we were coming up with add-path. Tian noticed this issue as well, and I just realized I didn't send my response to the WG as well. Rather than extending the format for withdrawn routes, this can be handled by adding an INACTIVE_WITHDRAW attribute to indicate removal of an unadvertised nexthop (path) and including the prefix and nexthop in the Network Layer Reachability Information. > - It doesn't appear to enable multiple active paths. There may be some > use for this in the future, notably for doing multipath in a clean way. True. Perhaps this could also be addressed by an additional attribute. > Regards, > > --John > Best, Justin 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 SAA12939 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B3D0091298; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:25:14 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 832B191299; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:25:14 -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 48CA291298 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:25:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 22CB25E0E0; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:25:13 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com [171.71.163.54]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E015DFD6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:25:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisco.com (router.cisco.com [171.69.182.20]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0ENPB0E003228; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:25:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.42.10] (ssh-rtp-1.cisco.com [161.44.11.166]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA09734; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:25:10 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jgs@router Message-Id: <p05200f0fba4a46a56655@[192.168.42.10]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301141405100.10476-100000@riga> References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301141405100.10476-100000@riga> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:24:53 -0500 To: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@cisco.com> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt Cc: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>, idr@merit.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi Justin, Comments in line below. At 2:31 PM -0800 1/14/03, Justin Fletcher wrote: >On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Robert Raszuk wrote: > >> Hi Justin, >> >> Do you see anything not addressed already by: draft-walton-bgp-add-paths >> which would support proceeding with your draft any further ? >> >> Thx, >> R. > >While we definitely have the same goals in mind, I think there are a few >issues that merit further disucssion. > >If in draft-walton-bgp-add-paths all nexthops are included with each route >adertisement this may result in an increase in the volume of data to >transferred and processed during normal operations. It was certainly not our intent that all routes ("paths") for a given NLRI be readvertised whenever one single path changes. I take it this is what you're referring to when you say "nexthops"? >If a change in >availability of a single undertised nexthop is indicated by setting both >the FirstPath and LastPath bits, this isn't an issue. The statement that >"any paths received before this one MUST be removed by the receiver" leads >to some questions of interpretation. We should clean those up then. Perhaps you can elaborate on the required clarification either on this list or off-line. Just to clarify for now: - Our draft (like yours) advertises multiple _routes_, not just nexthops. - Any single route may be advertised or withdrawn without affecting the other routes for the same NLRI. - The FirstPath flag provides implicit-withdraw semantics for the whole batch of paths for that NLRI. Sounds like that's what you're concerned about? Sending FirstPath is optional. Also, note that we plan to remove the LastPath flag in a forthcoming revision. You'll see this mentioned in the minutes of the last IDR WG meeting. >The addition of configuration options and a receive capability allows >additional flexibility in deployment. I don't think there's a deep difference between the two proposals in terms of configurability, which is fundamentally an implementation issue. Clearly an add-path implementation can (and perhaps should) default to working in plain-old-BGP mode. Leaving this up to the implementor is more to my taste, though. It's not clear to me what the deployment case is for splitting the capability's semantics into Tx/Rx. If there is a need, however, we'd be happy to add it to add-path. >Finally, it's a minimalist approach; there are no changes to the protocol >format itself. Here are a few concerns I have about your approach: - I don't see a way to withdraw a path. Lack of an easy way to withdraw paths is a key reason why we decided not to pursue a similar attribute- based approach when we were coming up with add-path. - It doesn't appear to enable multiple active paths. There may be some use for this in the future, notably for doing multipath in a clean way. Regards, --John 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 RAA09013 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:34:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id AF89791258; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:34:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7F40691294; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:34:25 -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 CCB2891258 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:32:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id AA7FA5E0C7; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:32:11 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from earthquake.proficient.net (fe0-0-access-1-sfo.proficient.net [65.209.247.5]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2255E090 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:32:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from riga ([10.0.0.25]) by earthquake.proficient.net over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:32:06 -0800 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:31:53 -0800 (PST) From: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> X-X-Sender: jfletcher@riga To: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt In-Reply-To: <3E2438A2.2C8E8882@cisco.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301141405100.10476-100000@riga> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2003 22:32:06.0958 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4F964E0:01C2BC1C] Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hi Justin, > > Do you see anything not addressed already by: draft-walton-bgp-add-paths > which would support proceeding with your draft any further ? > > Thx, > R. While we definitely have the same goals in mind, I think there are a few issues that merit further disucssion. If in draft-walton-bgp-add-paths all nexthops are included with each route adertisement this may result in an increase in the volume of data to transferred and processed during normal operations. If a change in availability of a single undertised nexthop is indicated by setting both the FirstPath and LastPath bits, this isn't an issue. The statement that "any paths received before this one MUST be removed by the receiver" leads to some questions of interpretation. The addition of configuration options and a receive capability allows additional flexibility in deployment. Finally, it's a minimalist approach; there are no changes to the protocol format itself. -- Justin Fletcher Proficient Networks, Inc. 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 LAA10437 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:20:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id E135091254; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:19:52 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A2A789127A; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:19:52 -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 7A3FA91254 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:19:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 623BA5E034; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:19:51 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com [171.70.157.152]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E758B5E06E for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:19:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0EGJEjS002612; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:19:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (ams-rraszuk-vpn5.cisco.com [10.61.160.6]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with ESMTP id ADD97118; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:16:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3E2438A2.2C8E8882@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:19:46 +0100 From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com> Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/ X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jfletcher@proficient.net Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt References: <200301141512.KAA26335@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi Justin, Do you see anything not addressed already by: draft-walton-bgp-add-paths which would support proceeding with your draft any further ? Thx, R. PS URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-walton-bgp-add-paths-01.txt > Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > Title : Inactive Path Advertisement in BGP-4 > Author(s) : J. Fletcher > Filename : draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt > Pages : 4 > Date : 2003-1-13 > > This document defines BGP capabilities and a path attribute to permit > advertisement of routes other than those selected during the BGP > decision process. These extensions would provide additional routing > information for research, monitoring and policy decisions. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt > > To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to > ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-ID: <2003-1-13141932.I-D@ietf.org> 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 KAA05588 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:16:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id CF6C891252; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:16:31 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 7AA1491279; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:16:31 -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 A5EA291252 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5A62F5E095; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:16:05 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0BB5E090 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:16:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26335; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:12:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200301141512.KAA26335@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: idr@merit.edu From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:12:42 -0500 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Inactive Path Advertisement in BGP-4 Author(s) : J. Fletcher Filename : draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt Pages : 4 Date : 2003-1-13 This document defines BGP capabilities and a path attribute to permit advertisement of routes other than those selected during the BGP decision process. These extensions would provide additional routing information for research, monitoring and policy decisions. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-1-13141932.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-fletcher-bgp-inactive-path-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-1-13141932.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- 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 JAA00802 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:16:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 77BAF91278; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:15:12 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0163791279; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:15:11 -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 C501291278 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:15:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A8E9E5E088; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:15:07 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from kanmx1.ca.alcatel.com (unknown [209.202.115.138]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id BDD915DFD0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:15:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28303 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2003 14:21:45 -0000 Received: (ofmipd 138.120.105.202); 14 Jan 2003 14:21:23 -0000 Date: 14 Jan 2003 09:15:05 -0500 Message-ID: <3E241B69.830E4255@alcatel.com> From: "Mireille Shammas" <mireille.shammas@alcatel.com> To: idr@merit.edu Cc: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net Organization: Alcatel CID X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Aggregation and MED on the issues list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi, A while back when draft-18 was being reviewed an issue was raised regarding section 9.2.2.2 "Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT be aggregated." This issue was not tracked down by issues list. Many people have argued that this rule could be relaxed to SHOULD NOT since many venders don't comply. I understand that this can be harmful in some situations. However, The correct behavior for aggregating routes with the same MED was never clarified. For example, what is correct behavior if we have 4 prefixes contributing to an aggregate address and 2 of them have MED x and the other 2 have MED y. Should we aggregate at all in this situations? I think this issue needs to be added to the list to get its full diligence. Mireille 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 KAA19208 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:53:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D7E98912A7; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:53:13 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 9D402912A8; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:53:13 -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 7705F912A7 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:53:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5DA225DF8B; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:53:12 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C727D5DDC2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:53:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h09FrBS54437; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:53:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200301091553.h09FrBS54437@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@merit.edu Cc: skh@nexthop.com Subject: 56th IETF IDR WG meeting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <63423.1042127591.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 07:53:11 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, We will be meeting in San Francisco. Please E-mail Sue and I potential agenda items. Sue & Yakov. 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 MAA17954 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:07:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id D76CE91223; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:07:04 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A2EAF9127F; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:07:04 -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 8F3A191223 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:07:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3FADE5DF1E; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:07:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83575DF1D for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h07H70w59244; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:07:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h07H6vC59237; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:06:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h07H6uN19243; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:06:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:06:56 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issues list, #17: Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? Message-ID: <20030107120656.B18378@nexthop.com> References: <20030107113149.A18378@nexthop.com> <200301071648.h07GmQS76508@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200301071648.h07GmQS76508@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:48:26AM -0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:48:26AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > At the beginning of the document, we define: > > BGP speaker > > A router that implements BGP. > > Seems reasonable. Which is what I perceive to be a problem. Were we to substitute all places (where appropriate) within the text where we say "router" and mean "BGP speaker", and simply define BGP speaker as "An entity that implements the BGP protocol", we allow routers and potentially other things. The above text requires a BGP speaker to be a router. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 LAA17042 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:50:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2C1379121C; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:48:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E3E739127F; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:48:29 -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 743C39121C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 564C75DEF1; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:48:28 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF695DE7B for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:48:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h07GmQS76508; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:48:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200301071648.h07GmQS76508@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issues list, #17: Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Jan 2003 11:31:49 EST." <20030107113149.A18378@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <83065.1041958106.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 08:48:26 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > Yakov, > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:00:27AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > Since operations of non-routing host are outside the scope of the > > document, > > Ok. > > > and since the document doesn't preclude non-routing hosts > > I'll change my suggestion then. > > At the beginning of the document, we define: > BGP speaker > A router that implements BGP. Seems reasonable. > This (potentially) restricts a speaker to being a router. > Additionally, several spots in the text where we probably should > say "BGP speaker", we use router. In view of the above change, we could use the term "BGP speaker" (as in the definition section we restrict BGP speaker to be a router). Yakov. 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 LAA16104 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:33:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 78DBA9120E; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:32:22 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2835E9121C; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:32:22 -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 0382D9120E for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:32:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id EE0D85E0FE; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:31:57 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3907A5E0EB for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:31:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h07GVri58549; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:31:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h07GVoC58540; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:31:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h07GVnG19072; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:31:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:31:49 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issues list, #17: Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? Message-ID: <20030107113149.A18378@nexthop.com> References: <20030106114519.A13605@nexthop.com> <200301071600.h07G0RS72738@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200301071600.h07G0RS72738@merlot.juniper.net>; from yakov@juniper.net on Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:00:27AM -0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Yakov, On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:00:27AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > Since operations of non-routing host are outside the scope of the > document, Ok. > and since the document doesn't preclude non-routing hosts I'll change my suggestion then. At the beginning of the document, we define: BGP speaker A router that implements BGP. This (potentially) restricts a speaker to being a router. Additionally, several spots in the text where we probably should say "BGP speaker", we use router. What do you think? -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 LAA14344 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B986191208; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:00:39 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 813DE9120E; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:00:39 -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 4865D91208 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:00:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 499A25DEF2; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:00:30 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726055DE08 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:00:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h07G0RS72738; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:00:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200301071600.h07G0RS72738@merlot.juniper.net> To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Cc: idr@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issues list, #17: Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Jan 2003 11:45:19 EST." <20030106114519.A13605@nexthop.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <69539.1041955227.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 08:00:27 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Jeff, > > Status: No Consensus > > Change: Potentially > > Summary: Do existing vendors rely on this, or no? If no, remove it. > > > > Discussion: > > > > This issue was spawned from the discussions in issue 16, specifically: > > > > Anonymous reviwer: > > > > > Section 3, page 8, para 3 - "The hosts executing..." This paragraph > > > seems obsolete. > > > > Yakov: > > > > I'll take it out. > > > > With regard to this, Siva asked if some route optimizaiton vendors rely on > > this. > > > > This was discussed in the "proxy: more commetns on draft -18" thread. > > To provide context, this paragraph currently reads: > > : The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host > : could exchange routing information with routers via EGP [RFC904] or > : even an interior routing protocol. That non-routing host could then > : use BGP to exchange routing information with a border router in > : another Autonomous System. The implications and applications of this > : architecture are for further study. > > There are several deployed entities that could be considered to "exploit" > this paragraph. Route collectors, route servers, bandwidth shapers > and other optimizers. However, the original text may be showing its > age a little bit. > > Perhaps the following might be a bit more appropriate: > > "The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host may > exchange routing information with a BGP speaker for reasons > that are outside the scope of this document." > > I would also propose adding to the same paragraph (but could be persuaded > to drop it since it is *logically* redundant): > "These non-routing hosts should exercise great care not to insert > themselves into the forwarding path if they re-announce BGP routes." Since operations of non-routing host are outside the scope of the document, and since the document doesn't preclude non-routing hosts to run BGP, I would prefer just to take the following paragraph out, and not to add any new text. The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host could exchange routing information with routers via EGP [RFC904] or even an interior routing protocol. That non-routing host could then use BGP to exchange routing information with a border router in another Autonomous System. The implications and applications of this architecture are for further study. Yakov. 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 OAA24856 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:28:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4372691270; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:28:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 06EBE91272; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:28:24 -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 C90E091270 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:28:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A707C5DF76; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:28:22 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8769C5DEA3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:28:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h06JSKm38663 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:28:20 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h06JSFC38651 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:28:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h06JSFK14778 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:28:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:28:15 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Issues list, #2: MUST/SHOULD Capitalization Message-ID: <20030106142815.A14474@nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > Status: Consensus > Change: Yes > Summary: Capitalize MUST/SHOULD where appropate. > > Discussion: > > Jeff brought this up, and Yakov reponded asking that he point out > specific instances where this is needed. Jeff said he would do so, > given some time. > > Yakov later replied that this would be fixed in the -19 version. Attached, please find a universal diff containing my recommended changes. Note that not all instances of our magic words are capitalized, it is not always appropriate. As such, I may have failed to capitalize where it is needed and may have also done so where it is inappropriate. These changes should go through at least one other thorough reviewer. Note that as part of these diffs, I found two cases that looked like a wording change was worth suggesting. To explicitly point it out: If the NEXT_HOP attribute of a BGP route depicts an address that is not resolvable, or it would become unresolvable if the route was - installed in the routing table the BGP route should be excluded from + installed in the routing table the BGP route MUST be excluded from the Phase 2 decision function. ...and... the NEXT_HOP attribute of the selected route (see section 5.1.3). If either the immediate next hop or the IGP cost to the NEXT_HOP (where the NEXT_HOP is resolved through an IGP route) changes, Phase 2: - Route Selection should be performed again. + Route Selection MUST be performed again. Other than these, everything else is a capitalization --- html/ID.local/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt Mon Nov 4 15:59:08 2002 +++ draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-18.txt Mon Jan 6 12:46:39 2003 @@ -454,7 +454,7 @@ BGP uses TCP [RFC793] as its transport protocol. This eliminates the need to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission, acknowledgment, and sequencing. BGP listens on TCP port 179. Any - authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) may be + authentication scheme used by TCP (e.g., RFC2385 [RFC2385]) MAY be used. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that TCP supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before the connection is closed. @@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ RFC DRAFT October 2002 - If a BGP speaker chooses to advertise the route, it may add to or + If a BGP speaker chooses to advertise the route, it MAY add to or modify the path attributes of the route before advertising it to a peer. @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ that the BGP speaker has selected by applying its local policies to the routing information contained in its Adj-RIBs-In. These are the routes that will be used by the local BGP speaker. The next - hop for each of these routes must be resolvable via the local BGP + hop for each of these routes MUST be resolvable via the local BGP speaker's Routing Table. c) Adj-RIBs-Out: The Adj-RIBs-Out store the information that the @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ This 2-octet unsigned integer indicates the total length of the message, including the header, in octets. Thus, e.g., it allows one to locate in the TCP stream the (Marker field of the) next - message. The value of the Length field must always be at least + message. The value of the Length field MUST always be at least 19 and no greater than 4096, and may be further constrained, depending on the message type. No "padding" of extra data after the message is allowed, so the Length field must have the @@ -765,7 +765,7 @@ value of the Hold Timer by using the smaller of its configured Hold Time and the Hold Time received in the OPEN message. The Hold Time MUST be either zero or at least three seconds. An - implementation may reject connections on the basis of the Hold + implementation MAY reject connections on the basis of the Hold Time. The calculated value indicates the maximum number of seconds that may elapse between the receipt of successive KEEPALIVE, and/or UPDATE messages by the sender. @@ -798,7 +798,7 @@ Optional Parameters: - This field may contain a list of optional parameters, where + This field MAY contain a list of optional parameters, where each parameter is encoded as a <Parameter Type, Parameter Length, Parameter Value> triplet. @@ -866,7 +866,7 @@ Withdrawn Routes Length: This 2-octets unsigned integer indicates the total length of - the Withdrawn Routes field in octets. Its value must allow the + the Withdrawn Routes field in octets. Its value MUST allow the length of the Network Layer Reachability Information field to be determined as specified below. @@ -919,7 +919,7 @@ Total Path Attribute Length: This 2-octet unsigned integer indicates the total length of the - Path Attributes field in octets. Its value must allow the + Path Attributes field in octets. Its value MUST allow the length of the Network Layer Reachability field to be determined as specified below. @@ -963,14 +963,14 @@ is transitive (if set to 1) or non-transitive (if set to 0). - For well-known attributes, the Transitive bit must be set to 1. + For well-known attributes, the Transitive bit MUST be set to 1. (See Section 5 for a discussion of transitive attributes.) The third high-order bit (bit 2) of the Attribute Flags octet is the Partial bit. It defines whether the information con- tained in the optional transitive attribute is partial (if set to 1) or complete (if set to 0). For well-known attributes and - for optional non-transitive attributes the Partial bit must be + for optional non-transitive attributes the Partial bit MUST be set to 0. The fourth high-order bit (bit 3) of the Attribute Flags octet @@ -978,7 +978,7 @@ Length is one octet (if set to 0) or two octets (if set to 1). The lower-order four bits of the Attribute Flags octet are - unused. They must be zero when sent and must be ignored when + unused. They MUST be zero when sent and MUST be ignored when received. The Attribute Type Code octet contains the Attribute Type Code. @@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ d) MULTI_EXIT_DISC (Type Code 4): This is an optional non-transitive attribute that is a four - octet non-negative integer. The value of this attribute may + octet non-negative integer. The value of this attribute MAY @@ -1110,7 +1110,7 @@ The attribute contains the last AS number that formed the aggregate route (encoded as 2 octets), followed by the IP address of the BGP speaker that formed the aggregate route - (encoded as 4 octets). This should be the same address as + (encoded as 4 octets). This SHOULD be the same address as the one used for the BGP Identifier of the speaker. Usage of this attribute is defined in 5.1.7. @@ -1205,10 +1205,10 @@ feasible route, in which case the WITHDRAWN ROUTES field need not be present. - An UPDATE message should not include the same address prefix in the + An UPDATE message SHOULD NOT include the same address prefix in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES and Network Layer Reachability Information fields, however a BGP speaker MUST be able to process UPDATE messages in this - form. A BGP speaker should treat an UPDATE message of this form as if + form. A BGP speaker SHOULD treat an UPDATE message of this form as if the WITHDRAWN ROUTES doesn't contain the address prefix. @@ -1356,12 +1356,12 @@ 3. Optional transitive. 4. Optional non-transitive. - Well-known attributes must be recognized by all BGP implementations. - Some of these attributes are mandatory and must be included in every + Well-known attributes MUST be recognized by all BGP implementations. + Some of these attributes are mandatory and MUST be included in every UPDATE message that contains NLRI. Others are discretionary and may or may not be sent in a particular UPDATE message. - All well-known attributes must be passed along (after proper updat- + All well-known attributes MUST be passed along (after proper updat- ing, if necessary) to other BGP peers. In addition to well-known attributes, each path may contain one or @@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ implementations support all optional attributes. The handling of an unrecognized optional attribute is determined by the setting of the Transitive bit in the attribute flags octet. Paths with unrecognized - transitive optional attributes should be accepted. If a path with + transitive optional attributes SHOULD be accepted. If a path with @@ -1384,16 +1384,16 @@ unrecognized transitive optional attribute is accepted and passed along to other BGP peers, then the unrecognized transitive optional - attribute of that path must be passed along with the path to other + attribute of that path MUST be passed along with the path to other BGP peers with the Partial bit in the Attribute Flags octet set to 1. If a path with recognized transitive optional attribute is accepted and passed along to other BGP peers and the Partial bit in the Attribute Flags octet is set to 1 by some previous AS, it is not set back to 0 by the current AS. Unrecognized non-transitive optional - attributes must be quietly ignored and not passed along to other BGP + attributes MUST be quietly ignored and not passed along to other BGP peers. - New transitive optional attributes may be attached to the path by the + New transitive optional attributes MAY be attached to the path by the originator or by any other BGP speaker in the path. If they are not attached by the originator, the Partial bit in the Attribute Flags octet is set to 1. The rules for attaching new non-transitive @@ -1401,12 +1401,12 @@ attribute. The documentation of each new non-transitive optional attribute will be expected to include such rules. (The description of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute gives an example.) All optional - attributes (both transitive and non-transitive) may be updated (if + attributes (both transitive and non-transitive) MAY be updated (if appropriate) by BGP speakers in the path. - The sender of an UPDATE message should order path attributes within + The sender of an UPDATE message SHOULD order path attributes within the UPDATE message in ascending order of attribute type. The receiver - of an UPDATE message must be prepared to handle path attributes + of an UPDATE message MUST be prepared to handle path attributes within the UPDATE message that are out of order. The same attribute can not appear more than once within the Path @@ -1454,7 +1454,7 @@ ORIGIN is a well-known mandatory attribute. The ORIGIN attribute - shall be generated by the speaker that originates the associated + SHALL be generated by the speaker that originates the associated routing information. Its value SHOULD NOT be changed by any other speaker. @@ -1468,20 +1468,20 @@ AS_SETs or AS_SEQUENCEs. When a BGP speaker propagates a route which it has learned from - another BGP speaker's UPDATE message, it shall modify the route's + another BGP speaker's UPDATE message, it SHALL modify the route's AS_PATH attribute based on the location of the BGP speaker to which the route will be sent: a) When a given BGP speaker advertises the route to an internal - peer, the advertising speaker shall not modify the AS_PATH + peer, the advertising speaker SHALL NOT modify the AS_PATH attribute associated with the route. b) When a given BGP speaker advertises the route to an external - peer, then the advertising speaker shall update the AS_PATH + peer, then the advertising speaker SHALL update the AS_PATH attribute as follows: 1) if the first path segment of the AS_PATH is of type - AS_SEQUENCE, the local system shall prepend its own AS number + AS_SEQUENCE, the local system SHALL prepend its own AS number as the last element of the sequence (put it in the leftmost position). If the act of prepending will cause an overflow in the AS_PATH segment, i.e. more than 255 ASs, it shall be legal @@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ own AS number to this new segment. 2) if the first path segment of the AS_PATH is of type AS_SET, - the local system shall prepend a new path segment of type + the local system SHALL prepend a new path segment of type @@ -1507,21 +1507,21 @@ When a BGP speaker originates a route then: - a) the originating speaker shall include its own AS number in a + a) the originating speaker SHALL include its own AS number in a path segment of type AS_SEQUENCE in the AS_PATH attribute of all UPDATE messages sent to an external peer. (In this case, the AS number of the originating speaker's autonomous system will be the only entry the path segment, and this path segment will be the only segment in the AS_PATH attribute). - b) the originating speaker shall include an empty AS_PATH + b) the originating speaker SHALL include an empty AS_PATH attribute in all UPDATE messages sent to internal peers. (An empty AS_PATH attribute is one whose length field contains the value zero). Whenever the modification of the AS_PATH attribute calls for includ- ing or prepending the AS number of the local system, the local system - may include/prepend more than one instance of its own AS number in + MAY include/prepend more than one instance of its own AS number in the AS_PATH attribute. This is controlled via local configuration. @@ -1534,16 +1534,16 @@ is calculated as follows. 1) When sending a message to an internal peer, if the route is not - locally originated the BGP speaker should not modify the NEXT_HOP + locally originated the BGP speaker SHOULD NOT modify the NEXT_HOP attribute, unless it has been explicitly configured to announce its own IP address as the NEXT_HOP. When announcing a locally - originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker should use + originated route to an internal peer, the BGP speaker SHOULD use as the NEXT_HOP the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker; if the route is directly connected to the speaker, or the interface address of the router through which the announced network is reachable for the speaker is the internal peer's address, then the BGP speaker - should use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the + SHOULD use for the NEXT_HOP attribute its own IP address (the address of the interface that is used to reach the peer). 2) When sending a message to an external peer X, and the peer is @@ -1579,12 +1579,12 @@ - Otherwise, if the external peer to which the route is being advertised shares a common subnet with one of the announcing - router's own interfaces, the router may use the IP address + router's own interfaces, the router MAY use the IP address associated with such an interface in the NEXT_HOP attribute. This is known as a "first party" NEXT_HOP attribute. - By default (if none of the above conditions apply), the BGP - speaker should use in the NEXT_HOP attribute the IP address of + speaker SHOULD use in the NEXT_HOP attribute the IP address of the interface that the speaker uses to establish the BGP con- nection to peer X. @@ -1598,18 +1598,18 @@ attribute of the learned route (the speaker just doesn't modify the NEXT_HOP attribute). - - By default, the BGP speaker should use in the NEXT_HOP + - By default, the BGP speaker SHOULD use in the NEXT_HOP attribute the IP address of the interface that the speaker uses to establish the BGP connection to peer X. Normally the NEXT_HOP attribute is chosen such that the shortest - available path will be taken. A BGP speaker must be able to support + available path will be taken. A BGP speaker MUST be able to support disabling advertisement of third party NEXT_HOP attributes to handle imperfectly bridged media. - A BGP speaker must never advertise an address of a peer to that peer + A BGP speaker MUST NEVER advertise an address of a peer to that peer as a NEXT_HOP, for a route that the speaker is originating. A BGP - speaker must never install a route with itself as the next hop. + speaker MUST NEVER install a route with itself as the next hop. @@ -1633,9 +1633,9 @@ entry which resolves the IP address in the NEXT_HOP attribute will always specify the outbound interface. If the entry specifies an attached subnet, but does not specify a next-hop address, then the - address in the NEXT_HOP attribute should be used as the immediate + address in the NEXT_HOP attribute SHOULD be used as the immediate next-hop address. If the entry also specifies the next-hop address, - this address should be used as the immediate next-hop address for + this address SHOULD be used as the immediate next-hop address for packet forwarding. @@ -1687,7 +1687,7 @@ each external route based on the locally configured policy, and include the degree of preference when advertising a route to its internal peers. The higher degree of preference MUST be preferred. A - BGP speaker shall use the degree of preference learned via LOCAL_PREF + BGP speaker SHALL use the degree of preference learned via LOCAL_PREF in its decision process (see section 9.1.1). A BGP speaker MUST NOT include this attribute in UPDATE messages that @@ -1745,11 +1745,11 @@ 5.1.7 AGGREGATOR - AGGREGATOR is an optional transitive attribute which may be included + AGGREGATOR is an optional transitive attribute which MAY be included in updates which are formed by aggregation (see Section 9.2.2.2). A - BGP speaker which performs route aggregation may add the AGGREGATOR + BGP speaker which performs route aggregation MAY add the AGGREGATOR attribute which shall contain its own AS number and IP address. The - IP address should be the same as the BGP Identifier of the speaker. + IP address SHOULD be the same as the BGP Identifier of the speaker. 6. BGP Error Handling. @@ -1763,7 +1763,7 @@ fields is sent, and the BGP connection is closed, unless it is explicitly stated that no NOTIFICATION message is to be sent and the BGP connection is not to be closed. If no Error Subcode is specified, - then a zero must be used. + then a zero MUST be used. The phrase "the BGP connection is closed" means that the TCP connec- tion has been closed, the associated Adj-RIB-In has been cleared, and @@ -1928,17 +1928,17 @@ The IP address in the NEXT_HOP must meet the following criteria to be considered semantically correct: - a) It must not be the IP address of the receiving speaker + a) It MUST NOT be the IP address of the receiving speaker b) In the case of an EBGP where the sender and receiver are one IP hop away from each other, either the IP address in the NEXT_HOP - must be the sender's IP address (that is used to establish the BGP + MUST be the sender's IP address (that is used to establish the BGP connection), or the interface associated with the NEXT_HOP IP - address must share a common subnet with the receiving BGP speaker. + address MUST share a common subnet with the receiving BGP speaker. - If the NEXT_HOP attribute is semantically incorrect, the error should - be logged, and the route should be ignored. In this case, no NOTIFI- - CATION message should be sent, and connection should not be closed. + If the NEXT_HOP attribute is semantically incorrect, the error SHOULD + be logged, and the route SHOULD be ignored. In this case, no NOTIFI- + CATION message should be sent, and connection SHOULD NOT be closed. The AS_PATH attribute is checked for syntactic correctness. If the path is syntactically incorrect, then the Error Subcode is set to @@ -1963,11 +1963,11 @@ is set to Invalid Network Field. If a prefix in the NLRI field is semantically incorrect (e.g., an - unexpected multicast IP address), an error should be logged locally, - and the prefix should be ignored. + unexpected multicast IP address), an error SHOULD be logged locally, + and the prefix SHOULD be ignored. An UPDATE message that contains correct path attributes, but no NLRI, - shall be treated as a valid UPDATE message. + SHALL be treated as a valid UPDATE message. @@ -2000,7 +2000,7 @@ If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE and/or NOTIFICATION messages within the period specified in the Hold Time field of the OPEN message, then the NOTIFICATION message with - Hold Timer Expired Error Code must be sent and the BGP connection + Hold Timer Expired Error Code MUST be sent and the BGP connection closed. @@ -2016,15 +2016,15 @@ In absence of any fatal errors (that are indicated in this section), - a BGP peer may choose at any given time to close its BGP connection + a BGP peer MAY choose at any given time to close its BGP connection by sending the NOTIFICATION message with Error Code Cease. However, - the Cease NOTIFICATION message must not be used when a fatal error + the Cease NOTIFICATION message MUST NOT be used when a fatal error indicated by this section does exist. - A BGP speaker may support the ability to impose an (locally config- + A BGP speaker MAY support the ability to impose an (locally config- ured) upper bound on the number of address prefixes the speaker is willing to accept from a neighbor. When the upper bound is reached, - the speaker (under control of local configuration) may either (a) + the speaker (under control of local configuration) MAY either (a) discard new address prefixes from the neighbor (while maintaining BGP connection with the neighbor), or (b) terminate the BGP connection with the neighbor. If the BGP speaker decides to terminate its BGP @@ -2042,7 +2042,7 @@ RFC DRAFT October 2002 - bound, then the speaker must send to the neighbor a NOTIFICATION mes- + bound, then the speaker MUST send to the neighbor a NOTIFICATION mes- sage with the Error Code Cease. @@ -2065,8 +2065,8 @@ the peers involved in the collision and to retain only the connection initiated by the BGP speaker with the higher-valued BGP Identifier. - Upon receipt of an OPEN message, the local system must examine all of - its connections that are in the OpenConfirm state. A BGP speaker may + Upon receipt of an OPEN message, the local system MUST examine all of + its connections that are in the OpenConfirm state. A BGP speaker MAY also examine connections in an OpenSent state if it knows the BGP Identifier of the peer by means outside of the protocol. If among these connections there is a connection to a remote BGP speaker whose @@ -2127,7 +2127,7 @@ it supports. If the two peers do support one or more common versions, then this will allow them to rapidly determine the highest common version. In order to support BGP version negotiation, future versions - of BGP must retain the format of the OPEN and NOTIFICATION messages. + of BGP MUST retain the format of the OPEN and NOTIFICATION messages. 8. BGP Finite State machine @@ -2171,7 +2171,7 @@ Please note that only Event 1 (manual start) and Event 2 (manual stop) are mandatory administrative events. All other administrative - events are optional. + events are OPTIONAL. Event1: Manual start @@ -2592,7 +2592,7 @@ There is one FSM per BGP connection. Prior to determining what peer a connection is associated with there may be two connections for a - given peer. There should be no more than one connection per peer. + given peer. There SHOULD be no more than one connection per peer. The collision detection identifies the case where there is more than one connection per peer and provides guidance for which connection to get rid of. When this occurs, the corresponding FSM for the connec- @@ -3363,7 +3363,7 @@ In response to a TCP connection succeeds [Event 15 - or Event 16], the 2nd connection shall be tracked until + or Event 16], the 2nd connection SHALL be tracked until it sends an OPEN message. If a valid Open message [Event 18] is received, it will be @@ -3433,28 +3433,28 @@ loops. AS loop detection is done by scanning the full AS path (as specified in the AS_PATH attribute), and checking that the autonomous system number of the local system does not appear in the AS path. If - the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route may be + the autonomous system number appears in the AS path the route MAY be stored in the Adj-RIB-In, but unless the router is configured to accept routes with its own autonomous system in the AS path, the - route shall not be passed to the BGP Decision Process. Operations of + route SHALL NOT be passed to the BGP Decision Process. Operations of a router that is configured to accept routes with its own autonomous system number in the AS path are outside the scope of this document. If the UPDATE message contains a non-empty WITHDRAWN ROUTES field, the previously advertised routes whose destinations (expressed as IP - prefixes) contained in this field shall be removed from the Adj-RIB- - In. This BGP speaker shall run its Decision Process since the previ- + prefixes) contained in this field SHALL be removed from the Adj-RIB- + In. This BGP speaker SHALL run its Decision Process since the previ- ously advertised route is no longer available for use. If the UPDATE message contains a feasible route, the Adj-RIB-In will be updated with this route as follows: if the NLRI of the new route is identical to the one of the route currently stored in the Adj-RIB- - In, then the new route shall replace the older route in the Adj-RIB- + In, then the new route SHALL replace the older route in the Adj-RIB- In, thus implicitly withdrawing the older route from service. Other- wise, if the Adj-RIB-In has no route with NLRI identical to the new - route, the new route shall be placed in the Adj-RIB-In. + route, the new route SHALL be placed in the Adj-RIB-In. - Once the BGP speaker updates the Adj-RIB-In, the speaker shall run + Once the BGP speaker updates the Adj-RIB-In, the speaker SHALL run its Decision Process. @@ -3487,7 +3487,7 @@ selection. The function that calculates the degree of preference for a given - route shall not use as its inputs any of the following: the existence + route SHALL NOT use as its inputs any of the following: the existence of other routes, the non-existence of other routes, or the path attributes of other routes. Route selection then consists of individ- ual application of the degree of preference function to each feasible @@ -3524,7 +3524,7 @@ 9.1.1 Phase 1: Calculation of Degree of Preference - The Phase 1 decision function shall be invoked whenever the local BGP + The Phase 1 decision function SHALL be invoked whenever the local BGP speaker receives from a peer an UPDATE message that advertises a new route, a replacement route, or withdrawn routes. @@ -3542,16 +3542,16 @@ RFC DRAFT October 2002 - The Phase 1 decision function shall lock an Adj-RIB-In prior to oper- - ating on any route contained within it, and shall unlock it after + The Phase 1 decision function SHALL lock an Adj-RIB-In prior to oper- + ating on any route contained within it, and SHALL unlock it after operating on all new or unfeasible routes contained within it. For each newly received or replacement feasible route, the local BGP - speaker shall determine a degree of preference as follows: + speaker SHALL determine a degree of preference as follows: If the route is learned from an internal peer, either the value of - the LOCAL_PREF attribute shall be taken as the degree of prefer- - ence, or the local system may compute the degree of preference of + the LOCAL_PREF attribute SHALL be taken as the degree of prefer- + ence, or the local system MAY compute the degree of preference of the route based on preconfigured policy information. Note that the latter (computing the degree of preference based on preconfigured policy information) may result in formation of persistent routing @@ -3560,7 +3560,7 @@ If the route is learned from an external peer, then the local BGP speaker computes the degree of preference based on preconfigured policy information. If the return value indicates that the route - is ineligible, the route may not serve as an input to the next + is ineligible, the route MAY NOT serve as an input to the next phase of route selection; otherwise the return value is used as the LOCAL_PREF value in any IBGP readvertisement. @@ -3571,19 +3571,19 @@ 9.1.2 Phase 2: Route Selection - The Phase 2 decision function shall be invoked on completion of Phase + The Phase 2 decision function SHALL be invoked on completion of Phase 1. The Phase 2 function is a separate process which completes when it - has no further work to do. The Phase 2 process shall consider all + has no further work to do. The Phase 2 process SHALL consider all routes that are eligible in the Adj-RIBs-In. - The Phase 2 decision function shall be blocked from running while the - Phase 3 decision function is in process. The Phase 2 function shall - lock all Adj-RIBs-In prior to commencing its function, and shall + The Phase 2 decision function SHALL be blocked from running while the + Phase 3 decision function is in process. The Phase 2 function SHALL + lock all Adj-RIBs-In prior to commencing its function, and SHALL unlock them on completion. If the NEXT_HOP attribute of a BGP route depicts an address that is not resolvable, or it would become unresolvable if the route was - installed in the routing table the BGP route should be excluded from + installed in the routing table the BGP route MUST be excluded from the Phase 2 decision function. It is critical that routers within an AS do not make conflicting @@ -3603,7 +3603,7 @@ For each set of destinations for which a feasible route exists in the - Adj-RIBs-In, the local BGP speaker shall identify the route that has: + Adj-RIBs-In, the local BGP speaker SHALL identify the route that has: a) the highest degree of preference of any route to the same set of destinations, or @@ -3626,7 +3626,7 @@ the NEXT_HOP attribute of the selected route (see section 5.1.3). If either the immediate next hop or the IGP cost to the NEXT_HOP (where the NEXT_HOP is resolved through an IGP route) changes, Phase 2: - Route Selection should be performed again. + Route Selection MUST be performed again. Notice that even though BGP routes do not have to be installed in the Routing Table with the immediate next hop(s), implementations must @@ -3643,7 +3643,7 @@ 9.1.2.1 Route Resolvability Condition - As indicated in Section 9.1.2, BGP routers should exclude unresolv- + As indicated in Section 9.1.2, BGP routers MUST exclude unresolv- able routes from the Phase 2 decision. This ensures that only valid routes are installed in Loc-RIB and the Routing Table. @@ -3696,14 +3696,14 @@ the network. Whenever a BGP speaker identifies a route that fails the resolvabil- - ity check because of mutual recursion, an error message should be + ity check because of mutual recursion, an error message SHOULD be logged. 9.1.2.2 Breaking Ties (Phase 2) - In its Adj-RIBs-In a BGP speaker may have several routes to the same + In its Adj-RIBs-In a BGP speaker MAY have several routes to the same destination that have the same degree of preference. The local speaker can select only one of these routes for inclusion in the associated Loc-RIB. The local speaker considers all routes with the @@ -3731,7 +3731,7 @@ The tie-breaking algorithm begins by considering all equally prefer- able routes to the same destination, and then selects routes to be removed from consideration. The algorithm terminates as soon as only - one route remains in consideration. The criteria must be applied in + one route remains in consideration. The criteria MUST be applied in the order specified. Several of the criteria are described using pseudo-code. Note that @@ -3828,7 +3828,7 @@ 9.1.3 Phase 3: Route Dissemination - The Phase 3 decision function shall be invoked on completion of Phase + The Phase 3 decision function SHALL be invoked on completion of Phase 2, or when any of the following events occur: @@ -3852,35 +3852,35 @@ The Phase 3 function is a separate process which completes when it has no further work to do. The Phase 3 Routing Decision function - shall be blocked from running while the Phase 2 decision function is + SHALL be blocked from running while the Phase 2 decision function is in process. - All routes in the Loc-RIB shall be processed into Adj-RIBs-Out - according to configured policy. This policy may exclude a route in + All routes in the Loc-RIB SHALL be processed into Adj-RIBs-Out + according to configured policy. This policy MAY exclude a route in the Loc-RIB from being installed in a particular Adj-RIB-Out. A - route shall not be installed in the Adj-Rib-Out unless the destina- + route SHALL NOT be installed in the Adj-Rib-Out unless the destina- tion and NEXT_HOP described by this route may be forwarded appropri- ately by the Routing Table. If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out the previously advertised route in that Adj- - RIB-Out must be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message + RIB-Out MUST be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2). Route aggregation and information reduction techniques (see 9.2.2.1) - may optionally be applied. + MAY optionally be applied. Any local policy which results in routes being added to an Adj-RIB- Out without also being added to the local BGP speaker's forwarding table, is outside the scope of this document. When the updating of the Adj-RIBs-Out and the Routing Table is com- - plete, the local BGP speaker shall run the Update-Send process of + plete, the local BGP speaker SHALL run the Update-Send process of 9.2. 9.1.4 Overlapping Routes - A BGP speaker may transmit routes with overlapping Network Layer + A BGP speaker MAY transmit routes with overlapping Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) to another BGP speaker. NLRI overlap occurs when a set of destinations are identified in non-matching mul- tiple routes. Since BGP encodes NLRI using IP prefixes, overlap will @@ -3913,7 +3913,7 @@ When overlapping routes are present in the same Adj-RIB-In, the more - specific route shall take precedence, in order from more specific to + specific route SHALL take precedence, in order from more specific to least specific. The set of destinations described by the overlap represents a portion @@ -3965,22 +3965,22 @@ either the same autonomous system or a neighboring autonomous system. When a BGP speaker receives an UPDATE message from an internal peer, - the receiving BGP speaker shall not re-distribute the routing infor- + the receiving BGP speaker SHALL NOT re-distribute the routing infor- mation contained in that UPDATE message to other internal peers, unless the speaker acts as a BGP Route Reflector [RFC2796]. As part of Phase 3 of the route selection process, the BGP speaker has updated its Adj-RIBs-Out. All newly installed routes and all - newly unfeasible routes for which there is no replacement route shall + newly unfeasible routes for which there is no replacement route SHALL be advertised to its peers by means of an UPDATE message. - A BGP speaker should not advertise a given feasible BGP route from + A BGP speaker SHOULD NOT advertise a given feasible BGP route from its Adj-RIB-Out if it would produce an UPDATE message containing the same BGP route as was previously advertised. - Any routes in the Loc-RIB marked as unfeasible shall be removed. + Any routes in the Loc-RIB marked as unfeasible SHALL be removed. Changes to the reachable destinations within its own autonomous sys- - tem shall also be advertised in an UPDATE message. + tem SHALL also be advertised in an UPDATE message. If due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4) a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP @@ -4082,7 +4082,7 @@ RFC DRAFT October 2002 - The Decision Process may optionally reduce the amount of information + The Decision Process MAY optionally reduce the amount of information that it will place in the Adj-RIBs-Out by any of the following meth- ods: @@ -4145,7 +4145,7 @@ aggregated. Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated - together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated, + together. Path attributes of the same type code MAY be aggregated, according to the following rules: NEXT_HOP: @@ -4155,10 +4155,10 @@ ORIGIN attribute: If at least one route among routes that are aggregated has ORI- - GIN with the value INCOMPLETE, then the aggregated route must + GIN with the value INCOMPLETE, then the aggregated route MUST have the ORIGIN attribute with the value INCOMPLETE. Other- wise, if at least one route among routes that are aggregated - has ORIGIN with the value EGP, then the aggregated route must + has ORIGIN with the value EGP, then the aggregated route MUSt have the origin attribute with the value EGP. In all other case the value of the ORIGIN attribute of the aggregated route is IGP. @@ -4173,14 +4173,14 @@ "type" identifies a type of the path segment the AS belongs to (e.g. AS_SEQUENCE, AS_SET), and "value" is the AS number. If the routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes, - then the aggregated AS_PATH attribute shall satisfy all of the + then the aggregated AS_PATH attribute SHALL satisfy all of the following conditions: - all tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE in the aggregated AS_PATH - shall appear in all of the AS_PATH in the initial set of + SHALL appear in all of the AS_PATH in the initial set of routes to be aggregated. - - all tuples of type AS_SET in the aggregated AS_PATH shall + - all tuples of type AS_SET in the aggregated AS_PATH SHALL appear in at least one of the AS_PATH in the initial set (they may appear as either AS_SET or AS_SEQUENCE types). @@ -4239,12 +4239,12 @@ ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route - shall have this attribute as well. + SHALL have this attribute as well. AGGREGATOR: - All AGGREGATOR attributes of all routes to be aggregated should + All AGGREGATOR attributes of all routes to be aggregated SHOULD be ignored. The BGP speaker performing the route aggregation - may attach a new AGGREGATOR attribute (see Section 5.1.7). + MAY attach a new AGGREGATOR attribute (see Section 5.1.7). @@ -4288,15 +4288,15 @@ 9.4 Originating BGP routes - A BGP speaker may originate BGP routes by injecting routing informa- + A BGP speaker MAY originate BGP routes by injecting routing informa- tion acquired by some other means (e.g. via an IGP) into BGP. A BGP - speaker that originates BGP routes shall assign the degree of prefer- + speaker that originates BGP routes SHALL assign the degree of prefer- ence to these routes by passing them through the Decision Process - (see Section 9.1). These routes may also be distributed to other BGP + (see Section 9.1). These routes MAY also be distributed to other BGP speakers within the local AS as part of the update process (see Sec- tion 9.2). The decision whether to distribute non-BGP acquired routes within an AS via BGP or not depends on the environment within the AS - (e.g. type of IGP) and should be controlled via configuration. + (e.g. type of IGP) and SHOULD be controlled via configuration. 10 BGP Timers @@ -4338,9 +4338,9 @@ figurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a - given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter should be applied to the + given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter SHOULD be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationInterval, KeepAlive, Min- - RouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker may + RouteAdvertisementInterval, and ConnectRetry. A given BGP speaker MAY apply the same jitter to each of these quantities regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured on a "per peer" basis. @@ -4348,7 +4348,7 @@ The suggested default amount of jitter shall be determined by multi- plying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. A new - random value should be picked each time the timer is set. The range + random value SHOULD be picked each time the timer is set. The range of the jitter random value MAY be configurable. @@ -4514,16 +4514,16 @@ If a local system TCP user interface supports TCP PUSH function, then - each BGP message should be transmitted with PUSH flag set. Setting + each BGP message SHOULD be transmitted with PUSH flag set. Setting PUSH flag forces BGP messages to be transmitted promptly to the receiver. If a local system TCP user interface supports setting precedence for - TCP connection, then TCP connection used by BGP should be opened with + TCP connection, then TCP connection used by BGP SHOULD be opened with precedence set to Internetwork Control (110) value (see also [RFC791]). - A local system may protect its BGP connections by using the TCP MD5 + A local system MAY protect its BGP connections by using the TCP MD5 Signature Option [RFC2385]. @@ -4602,7 +4602,7 @@ This permits them to quickly identify sets of attributes from differ- ent update messages which are semantically identical. To facilitate this, it is a useful optimization to order the path attributes - according to type code. This optimization is entirely optional. + according to type code. This optimization is entirely OPTIONAL. Appendix F.4 AS_SET sorting @@ -4622,7 +4622,7 @@ RFC DRAFT October 2002 - is entirely optional. + is entirely OPTIONAL. Appendix F.5 Control over version negotiation @@ -4638,7 +4638,7 @@ An implementation which chooses to provide a path aggregation algo- - rithm which retains significant amounts of path information may wish + rithm which retains significant amounts of path information MAY wish to use the following procedure: For the purpose of aggregating AS_PATH attributes of two routes, @@ -4692,7 +4692,7 @@ If as a result of the above procedure a given AS number appears more than once within the aggregated AS_PATH attribute, all, but - the last instance (rightmost occurrence) of that AS number should + the last instance (rightmost occurrence) of that AS number SHOULD be removed from the aggregated AS_PATH attribute. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies 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 LAA19749 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:49:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 501CB91268; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:47:21 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EA45791267; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:47:20 -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 08CA491263 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 558775DF76; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:45:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B57C5DDB3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id h06GjM434476 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:45:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h06GjJC34468 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:45:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id h06GjJp13769 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:45:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:45:19 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> To: idr@merit.edu Subject: Issues list, #17: Section 3, Page 8, Paragraph 3 - Obsolete? Message-ID: <20030106114519.A13605@nexthop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > Status: No Consensus > Change: Potentially > Summary: Do existing vendors rely on this, or no? If no, remove it. > > Discussion: > > This issue was spawned from the discussions in issue 16, specifically: > > Anonymous reviwer: > > > Section 3, page 8, para 3 - "The hosts executing..." This paragraph > > seems obsolete. > > Yakov: > > I'll take it out. > > With regard to this, Siva asked if some route optimizaiton vendors rely on > this. > > This was discussed in the "proxy: more commetns on draft -18" thread. To provide context, this paragraph currently reads: : The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host : could exchange routing information with routers via EGP [RFC904] or : even an interior routing protocol. That non-routing host could then : use BGP to exchange routing information with a border router in : another Autonomous System. The implications and applications of this : architecture are for further study. There are several deployed entities that could be considered to "exploit" this paragraph. Route collectors, route servers, bandwidth shapers and other optimizers. However, the original text may be showing its age a little bit. Perhaps the following might be a bit more appropriate: "The hosts executing BGP need not be routers. A non-routing host may exchange routing information with a BGP speaker for reasons that are outside the scope of this document." I would also propose adding to the same paragraph (but could be persuaded to drop it since it is *logically* redundant): "These non-routing hosts should exercise great care not to insert themselves into the forwarding path if they re-announce BGP routes." -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies
- BGP Base Draft - Issue List v2.2 (Draft-19) andrewl
- Issue 18 Mathew Richardson
- Re: Issue 18 andrewl
- Re: Issue 18 Mathew Richardson
- Re: Issue 18 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Issue 18 Mathew Richardson
- Re: Issue 18 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Issue 18 Yakov Rekhter