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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

> On Jan 11, 2023, at 10:35 AM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff, 
> 
> Yes your interpretation of my point is not cool. 
> 
> See I have been exposed to problems with capabilities in number of issues and it never is cool. 

It's no fun to be on the other end of the phone with a customer having such problems either. :-)

> 
> Just noticed another public example: 
> 
> https://supportportal.juniper.net/s/article/BGP-session-between-Juniper-and-Cisco-devices-down-after-upgrading-to-Junos-OS-release-16-1?language=en_US <https://supportportal.juniper.net/s/article/BGP-session-between-Juniper-and-Cisco-devices-down-after-upgrading-to-Junos-OS-release-16-1?language=en_US>
> 
> Bottom line yes if one would take what it written in RFC5492 verbatim lot's of those issues could be avoided, but we are about impacting large operational networks hence a bit of resistance on my side to take it into BGP Capabilities especially considering that there are other alternatives with no obvious impact. 

Your argument sums to "capabilities negotiation can cause issues and I may object to all features I don't like that may use capabilities".  Sorry, that's not going to win in this discussion.

I think we're all quite supportive of text that suggests operational knobs to disable the feature.  Since the text notes in section 3 that it has scenarios where it's NOT RECOMMENDED, it's leaning toward this needs to be configurable.  In general, the document could use an Operational Considerations section.

> 
> Now if we want (as WG) provide input to authors I guess we could discuss pros and cons of either using extended optional params or as I suggested this week new BGP Open Optional Parameter. If we take this via WG to me the latter is more straightforward. 

To be clear, extended optional parameters from RFC 9072 is just about making additional length available for optional parameters.  I think what you're intending to type is encoding the version capability in a new optional parameter different than a capability optional parameter.

-- Jeff