IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)

Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa.net.uk> Tue, 21 November 2017 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.mangin@exa.net.uk>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A6D1294A8; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:10:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 aPIJ0Yws7jyz; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-7.mail.exa.net.uk (out-7.mail.exa.net.uk [82.219.4.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07DDC1294A1; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-5.mail.exa.net.uk (smtp-5.mail.exa.net.uk [82.219.5.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by out-7.mail.exa.net.uk (ExaSMTPD) with ESMTPS id C90A71C0718; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:09:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from smtp-5.mail.exa.net.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-5.mail.exa.net.uk (ExaSMTPD) with ESMTP id B3965405BF; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:09:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from 191.254.66.195.meeting.linx.net (191.254.66.195.meeting.linx.net [195.66.254.191]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: thomas@mangin.com) by smtp-5.mail.exa.net.uk (ExaSMTPD) with ESMTPSA; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:09:59 +0000 (GMT)
From: Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa.net.uk>
Message-Id: <FE63905F-3598-4BF3-B5E9-81CC40126E95@exa.net.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DAB1E946-F897-466C-9DB7-5D9DA882D410"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:09:55 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=1sHhAqhOc2VipzZMB+Zsxk8n+8cNUshkjPw_A9k9E-A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, idr-ads@ietf.org
To: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
References: <000901d35c08$3f12d950$bd388bf0$@ndzh.com> <B61C3B8F-1168-4EB1-8D8E-88C4BF28B3AA@exa.net.uk> <CA+b+ER=1sHhAqhOc2VipzZMB+Zsxk8n+8cNUshkjPw_A9k9E-A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at outbound1.mail.exa.net.uk
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/hIvs2XlTEbtOXWBMO_WRucEUO6o>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:10:03 -0000

Hello Robert,

> But this is not the main problem I am pointing out. The problem is that in the above case the local guy who is adding stuff to existing update will locally and immediately know that it failed. 

I understand this is the same transitive issue we saw with ASN4 in the past where the failure is occurring a few routers away. 

That said should I send a peer an update of exactly 4096 bytes, how would they propagate it to its peers / transit and prepend their own ASN without breaking their session ? So I think that the issue is still not limited to this draft.

As the behaviour can happen without the draft - to be honest my own code suffers from this bug and I will be fixing it today -  it would cause the same remote flapping as seen with ASN.

This case is not covered by RFC 7606 for “thread-as-withdraw” ? Perhaps time for some code audit by everyone ...

> And since IDR and community failed to progress OPERATIONAL MSG in BGP providing a bit of a ops feedback between peers and perhaps beyond we are where we are. https://goo.gl/JTpQDc <https://goo.gl/JTpQDc>
I agree that having way to share implementation limitation (like max rib size, etc.) is something that should perhaps be discussed again .. 
Different thread for a different day :-)

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email