Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 06 February 2014 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CBB1A046E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:31:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FzCVoCoE-Y-V for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C09A41A04DC for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id AE53BC333; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:31:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:31:02 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "Keyur Patel (keyupate)" <keyupate@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20140206203102.GH23551@pfrc>
References: <20140206201254.GG23551@pfrc> <CF192FC8.62EAE%keyupate@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CF192FC8.62EAE%keyupate@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:31:06 -0000

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:23:49PM +0000, Keyur Patel (keyupate) wrote:
> >The distinction is that I think we shouldn't ask for enhanced RRs (or
> >process them if restarting) until restart procedures are concluded.  The
> >above text makes it ok to request one for a given afi/safi once that
> >afi/safi has sent eor.
> 
> Right. I don't know if we can control the "ask". But the text above
> ensures (like you said) that the refresh reply will be delayed till EOR is
> serviced.

Just to close this loop for Sue, as I said in my original reply, the
existing text is sufficient.  If we were going to add text, it'd basically
say "do not process received refresh requests until GR procedures are
complete".

I'm not going to press heavily for such a thing in the spec.  But it's
likely what I'd suggest we put in our implementation.

-- Jeff