Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-03 (3/23 to 4/12/2024) - Extended to 4/19/2024

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Just for the record I do not support this WG LC.

The proposed solution is not granular enough. While it is better
than nothing, why to concentrate energy on a solution which may only react
to stuck peer for hours (send buffer fill time when only keepalives are
sent) and only cover subset of cases ?

We have proposed a TCP extension (which is already in the main kernel
distro for a long time) which addresses the problem in a much more
universal way.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout-01.txt

This draft proposes to use BGP KEEPALIVES or UPDATES to detect peer
liveness while the proper way is to accomplish the same using TCP User
Timeout.

Of course some say - BGP folks do not always have freedom to access
underlying OS TCP stack - that is true. But I would expect that the quality
document going out of IDR WG would discuss all options so interested
developer can choose (or check if his TCP stack already is fine) by for
example merging draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer
& draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout

Kind regards,
Robert


On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 5:17 PM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Greetings:
>
>
>
> A great deal of good discussion has occurred regarding
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer during the WG LC.
>
>
>
> However, we need additional comments on this draft prior to completing the
> WG LC.  To enable this discussion, I an extending the WG LC an extra week
> to 4/19/2024.
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Sue Hares
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>