IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-09 (2/28/2023 to 3/14/2023)

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 07 March 2023 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 92AE0C151522 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2023 22:28:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ViRvqdnSFr5y for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2023 22:28:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D34BC151539 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2023 22:28:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4599AB4; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 07:28:30 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1678170510; bh=PRfprReSuXhWCauycSaYvwTiWcvDxV1vAWEIuud0DtQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bCGGlg/ZPs6uAMxgoRxw2I8dm1rQ0Kbp7cCDZgJsUYo7hlKH/zwZ31am9tP4dvOoe KkoplQ4YKvKlWyrbBRtzEBcPd6OwZCBO6CY/hkPa7S7BYublFxI9iSKpKfkTfAqmu4 KFxopZVmY1k+HgxeBG6KP/IEzH8MOmkpVqJIZqLk=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BAEB3; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 07:28:30 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2023 07:28:30 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
cc: Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, idr@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMGiB8iiqKbj40kZsSFAQXCQ+baGQWuA7oQ1D0qF5aygeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2303070725390.2636@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <BYAPR08MB4872FD426205CAC6F82D22BEB3AD9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <AM7PR07MB6248673BB25E0C0BCDBEE480A0B69@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHF9G5-CmGPJpWja=1kgBrV=EYtzyhQr9La1722=D+ugA@mail.gmail.com> <m2edq1ac7s.wl-randy@psg.com> <ZAZSyywxxg0HkaDw@snel> <CAOj+MMGiB8iiqKbj40kZsSFAQXCQ+baGQWuA7oQ1D0qF5aygeQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iaYff2rArdW8wfKFz9pbcjBygf8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-09 (2/28/2023 to 3/14/2023)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 07 Mar 2023 06:28:43 -0000

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Robert Raszuk wrote:

> My main issue with what is proposed here is that it completely ignores TCP
> keepalives.

What would the draft do to TCP keepalives? If the receiving application 
has stopped reading from the socket then TCP keepalives will still run as 
normal.

> Of course one may say ... Oh if I configure long enough timers we will be
> fine - and that is maybe true - maybe SendHoldTimer will be just an extra
> fuse.

That seems to be what is proposed, yes.

> Currently draft says:
>
> A HoldTimer value of 4 minutes is suggested.
> A SendHoldTimer value of 8 minutes is suggested.
>
> But I am sure there is going to be CLI to override it.
>
> And when I see HoldTimer recommendation of 4 minutes ... well many folks
> are asking vendors to support HoldTimer of 30 sec as they do not (or can
> not) use BFD. What are they suppose to do ? Naturally will set
> SendHoldTimer to 60 sec and the fun will start.

The fact that vendors and people can choose to configure values that 
results in suboptimal working end result isn't a reason to not implement 
something.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email