Re: [Idr] BGP: Vendor Specific Capabilities

"John G. Scudder" <jgs@bgp.nu> Tue, 29 April 2008 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53FA3A6AF7; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D9E3A6872 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.043
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QY4Lmtnlqj9m for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bgp.nu (bgp.nu [64.27.28.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08FE3A69B5 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (bgp.nu [64.27.28.76]) by bgp.nu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD9C53E1AF; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:33:42 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at bgp.nu
Received: from bgp.nu ([64.27.28.76]) by localhost (bgp.nu [64.27.28.76]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id rFiB2ohyp1od; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:33:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.16.13.201] (dsl093-003-111.det1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.3.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bgp.nu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BBE53E0FC; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:33:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <A0C7C7C2-38BE-4447-BE7C-250C9BC07174@bgp.nu>
From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@bgp.nu>
To: sundeep.mudgal@nokia.com
In-Reply-To: <E5E76343C87BB34ABC6C3FDF3B31272756B0E8@daebe103.NOE.Nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:33:34 -0400
References: <E5E76343C87BB34ABC6C3FDF3B31272702427B7B@daebe103.NOE.Nokia.com> <1BA6DC24-A122-4453-B0A8-D093DC54880F@bgp.nu> <E5E76343C87BB34ABC6C3FDF3B31272756B0D4@daebe103.NOE.Nokia.com> <11DD8C70-3582-41F3-A197-2891924D8398@bgp.nu> <E5E76343C87BB34ABC6C3FDF3B31272756B0E8@daebe103.NOE.Nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2)
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP: Vendor Specific Capabilities
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Well this is an RFC 4271 question really.  You will find the answer in  
Section 6.2, OPEN Message Error Handling:

    If one of the Optional Parameters in the OPEN message is not
    recognized, then the Error Subcode MUST be set to Unsupported
    Optional Parameters.

So in answer to the first part of your question, that's a MUST.

Regarding what to do if the peer closes the connection without any  
indication of why (no NOTIFICATION) it's really up to you, but I would  
be disinclined to go through extensive gyrations trying to guess what  
the peer's problem is.

--John

On Apr 29, 2008, at 6:40 PM, <sundeep.mudgal@nokia.com> wrote:

>
>
>   John,
>
>        I have one more more doubt which needs clarification :
>
>           In response to an open message with capabilities, a peer  
> that supports no capabilities
>
>                 1) MUST send NOTIFICATION message with unsupported  
> optional parameter.
>
>                                  OR
>
>                  2) SHOULD send NOTIFICATION message with  
> unsupported optional parameter.
>
>
>         Say for example, as a BGP speaker X support some capability  
> and its  peer Y has the basic implementation of BGP without any  
> optional capabilities. So in that case:
>
>              - Will the peer Y always (MUST) send NOTIFICATION  
> message to the speaker X with unsupported optional parameter?
>
>              - Or if a peer Y doesn't send any notification and  
> closes the connection then should the speaker X send a new open  
> message without any optional capabilities or should speaker X wait  
> for the peer's open message and adjust accordingly?
>
>
>         I don't see this defined clearly in any of the RFCs which I  
> have read. Could you please clarify this or point me to the section  
> of RFC which states this?
>
> thanks,
> Sundeep
>
...
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr