From nobody Wed Jun 16 14:12:15 2021 Return-Path: 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 8BBE83A26E7 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:12:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=aelmans.eu 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 14En-ykid4v2 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x535.google.com (mail-pg1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 662A93A26E4 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x535.google.com with SMTP id e33so3085640pgm.3 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aelmans.eu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=g+CUXBQqPF3tBs8Mcl0zI2+RQD4JcZskPGmA4WNdk34=; b=Nyy5HEl4kUL54AuKYupXFg3BLpFi5/MzNmPAGHD6Pvwlj0gf1Zq0qkKAYMorqZWleH SG3+SSKL2HOujDwMunVZpzJ+K+HTFOR1tZagt6BR2lX2XV/472EueNXAZQeyiPpBCxjH lSgqng1QRfM4Kf7Zn2kZRCTv3USW4b41AmFldXeTnxh48/k1vNS9MuUKkgd6UAslef7h QgzRDHjYKTtiVx0zb4CtgxVWQiXU4RTl/OoJZdT5IImLB3Io13tQrMhOyRri3KIwDDmd 2K4MsCvB+YP6tDO4X2b4/S3LedF4TtHfrc6RnD8nDU7vDf2WASZ1IL77PTY5ADenq0Vi NkkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g+CUXBQqPF3tBs8Mcl0zI2+RQD4JcZskPGmA4WNdk34=; b=SOKkxcOuZfSD3soCBbl9nNfuyN2XExtr9SujhsJ2T0gcTv1DqcFSqBrHVC7MT6G4r2 ddKXYpYnLswLpIAWyNz3BDvVjsRIdp+YwNRU4Mw8JHq5OCzBynT3EA3tbLODoKDjZdXA RjS1rVoxCjudUwm4PAe8piS6C/mI0DbcS10sByOxoGNx1JS4X+CT93ig0wsWjaKEIvvC adJUK0WOk7qG+gQkCTrIKLsfJEjGX47fZXHppdoyDnJfeSienfZLr3CMfyQUh+sMCdAj S55vVQSQRSReiJaToFk39utCv6ucpXR6fflmNCpIbIwfy6w66MydGubEevfaFDoDn/Wx 3DlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532kXJ4guNzRfnrS9iSclA2uVl8JMJizTfGrKLakYVc/IIb5npa0 DoaRGuHqKy8fbHCx26yLX0XG+E5r5ALzfqQmm1u6i+AQyx5pseKEcRE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzH7IiAmK/0dY9cu0vCzI6YNMajUCLj5c/Bw1yG8PEgc6Fibe5h/gwBOchU0CwuvhJqP90bVXCAEO4iv2alqw= X-Received: by 2002:a63:d511:: with SMTP id c17mr1544051pgg.219.1623877926019; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:12:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Melchior Aelmans Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 23:11:54 +0200 Message-ID: To: Gyan Mishra Cc: Brian Dickson , heasley , "idr@ietf. org" , Melchior Aelmans , Robert Raszuk Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f077e605c4e88ac2" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-sas-idr-maxprefix-inbound-02.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 21:12:13 -0000 --000000000000f077e605c4e88ac2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear WG, commenters, Thanks for all the suggestions and great discussion. I have just uploaded -03 ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sas-idr-maxprefix-inbound) version which includes the following statement: Operators SHOULD take special care when applying soft- reconfiguration inbound, as it could still expose control plane to exhaustion if no pre-policy limits are available or are not configured. Implementations SHOULD provide means to configure two thresholds for inbound limits. One before soft- reconfiguration inbound and one after soft-reconfiguration inbound. This is to prevent soft-reconfiguration inbound to exhaust control plane resources. The threshold before soft- reconfiguration inbound SHOULD be higher than the limit configured after soft-reconfiguration inbound. Does that make sense and addresses the issue? Please advise. Thanks! Melchior On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 1:13 AM Gyan Mishra wrote: > > I understand for documentation purposes being in the draft. I am in > agreement as highlighted by Jacob & Robert. > > Gyan > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 4:13 PM Brian Dickson < > brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 8:44 AM heasley wrote: >> >>> Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:14:51PM -0400, Gyan Mishra: >>> > +1 more for implementation not for draft >>> >>> I disagree; that has helped create the inconsistencies among impls. >>> Document >>> it. >>> >> >> I also disagree, for the reasons highlighted by Jakob and Robert. >> It needs to be in the draft. >> >> Brian Dickson >> > > > -- > > > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions A**rchitect * > > *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com * > > > > *M 301 502-1347* > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > --000000000000f077e605c4e88ac2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear WG, commenters,

T= hanks for all the suggestions and great discussion.

I have ju= st uploaded -03=C2=A0 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-s= as-idr-maxprefix-inbound) version which includes the following statemen= t:

Operators SHOULD take special care when applying soft-
         reconfiguration inbound, as it could still expose control plane
         to exhaustion if no pre-policy limits are available or are not
         configured.  Implementations SHOULD provide means to configure
         two thresholds for inbound limits.  One before soft-
         reconfiguration inbound and one after soft-reconfiguration
         inbound.  This is to prevent soft-reconfiguration inbound to
         exhaust control plane resources.  The threshold before soft-
         reconfiguration inbound SHOULD be higher than the limit
         configured after soft-reconfiguration inbound.

Does that=C2=A0make sense and addresses the issue? Please advi= se.

Thanks!
Melchior

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at= 1:13 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusag= sm@gmail.com> wrote:

I understand for documenta= tion purposes being in the draft.=C2=A0 I am in agreement as highlighted by= Jacob & Robert.

Gyan

On Thu, May 13, 202= 1 at 4:13 PM Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:


On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 8:44 AM heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:<= br>
Wed, May 12, 202= 1 at 11:14:51PM -0400, Gyan Mishra:
> +1 more for implementation not for draft

I disagree; that has helped create the inconsistencies among impls.=C2=A0 D= ocument
it.

I also disagree, for the reasons hi= ghlighted by Jakob and Robert.
It needs to be in the draft.
=

Brian Dickson=C2=A0


--
--000000000000f077e605c4e88ac2--