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

[Paolo Lucente <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I support this WGLC.

I wanted to bring the perspective of a BGP route collector: I consider 
it helpful if the collector and/or the collector peers would terminate 
and try to restart the BGP session if any side reckons messages are 
possibly not making it across.

A route collector could be sitting in the enterprise domain of an 
operator vs its BGP peers being in the actual network domain. These 
environments may be attended by different teams. Plus this also 
typically means that extra enterprise machinery, ie. firewalls, may be 
taking place in the middle of the TCP session — and potentially disrupt it.

I suffered in the past of packets suddenly not making it through without 
a polite TCP RST or anything from said in-between machinery -- bringing 
the sessions to a stall / death state. The described mechanism would 
help in these situations too.

Paolo


On 12/4/24 17:16, Susan Hares 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