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

FSM is one serious point.

But technically what is in this draft and apparently prototyped in one open
source implementation has a very limited (read narrow) applicability.

We provided alternative approach in
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chen-idr-tcp-user-timeout-00.txt

If WG thinks there is really an issue worth solving we need to look at the
root of the problem not a way to just detect one of the possible
instantiations. Moreover what is detected at the BGP level may by TCP
design be simply wrong (false positive).

Regards,
Robert

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:58 PM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com
> >
> Sent: 01 March 2023 02:49
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
> draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-09(2/28/2023 - 3/14/2023).
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer/
>
> <tp>
> I think that the authors of this I-D underestimate the work involved in
> updating the BGP FSM, probably by an order of magnitude.
>
> They specify a new event and give a list of actions to be performed when
> it happens.  This is inadequate.  As the present FSM shows, such a list is
> required for each and every state that the FSM can be in, so multiply that
> by at least six, In practice, several states have in effect substates
> depending on the configuration so it is more than just the six defined
> states.
>
> Further, the timer will be running or not running in every state
> transition  so that for every state transition in any state, it must be
> specified what happens to the timer, started, stopped and so on,  Given the
> number of state transitions, multiply that by fifty, or more.
>
> As written, I think that this I-D will seriously damage RFC4271 rendering
> the FSM of limited value.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> The authors should send in an IPR statement.
>
> This draft modifies RFC 4271.
>
> The authors have this description of the draft
>
>   This document defines the SendHoldTimer session attribute for the
>    Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Finite State Machine (FSM).
>    Implementation of a SendHoldTimer should help overcome situations
>    where BGP sessions are not terminated after it has become detectable
>    for the local system that the remote system is not processing BGP
>    messages.  For robustness, this document specifies that the local
>    system should close BGP connections and not solely rely on the remote
>    system for session closure when BGP timers have expired.  This
>    document updates RFC4271.
>
> Please consider if this addition should be made to RFC 4271.
>
> Cheerily, Sue
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>