Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
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 7C8421294E1; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:07:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 hVBgloacq9c4; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 717C1129473; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:07:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1712; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1488924432; x=1490134032; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=k361KZV50E0EVGn9XQwJWQi8UGYK0LL4eAMnW6dG3Kw=; b=fyeL6b/b5jyFRZcgZZrqg4Tdo9VlPSrR0OQB7JM5XEgUQkwQoA/bquUH 73HzQ8/bTZvJ1exx0jhNcWh3jKA3IaUx+ig8YM2ExB/imk1VMp+u0o49V Mh8ZFwK1dIX4yMREAlmEWL/CtHE0yC7vOdQyVPh4TPYuGerKbK2rn6plD A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AcAgDnLb9Y/5hdJa1dGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBg1GBaweDWIoMpwKCDYYiAhqCET8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFgYjBA1FEAI?= =?us-ascii?q?BCA4MAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FiX+wX4FsOop8AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBH?= =?us-ascii?q?YELhUOCBYJqh1ougjEBBJV3hjkBkjYKgXGPJIhDincBHziBA1YVUAGGQnWJBoE?= =?us-ascii?q?NAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,260,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="393910184"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Mar 2017 22:07:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v27M7Bus016512 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Mar 2017 22:07:11 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 16:07:10 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 16:07:10 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20
Thread-Index: AQHSjglrFbHoeYS2WUyxb/MV1DegzqF/VY+AgAq9dwA=
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 22:07:10 +0000
Message-ID: <EFB3835C-AEEA-46ED-9D6A-91889B005D1C@cisco.com>
References: <DAEE98CC-8483-499E-B71C-FE4C6FC15A4A@cisco.com> <20170228210627.GB17448@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170228210627.GB17448@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <4C2EFB91C0BB184682C9184804EEB4DA@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oYiWoAvAmDByZqPizpAUmHVrJsI>
Cc: "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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 2017 22:07:13 -0000

On 2/28/17, 4:06 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>; wrote:

…
> >M7. What about transition/migration/partial deployment?  What should the
> >behavior be if, for example, an Extended Message UPDATE is received from a
> >peer, but can’t be propagated to others because they don’t support
> >Extended Messages (think route reflectors or simple eBGP -> iBGP)??  There
> >should be some guidance for the general case (i.e. when the total size is
> >>4k due simply to the total amount of information, and not because a
> >single attribute, for example, is really big), and some requirements
> >looking forward to potential new messages/attributes that specifically
> >rely on Extended Messages.
>
> I'm not sure such guidance belongs in this document.  We already have
> scenarios wherein normal protocol machinery can result in messages that are
> too large.  The expected behavior is "treat as withdraw" to the next
> downstream, similar to the BGP Error handling RFC.
>
> Examples of this include AS_PATH or CLUSTER_LIST attributes needing to add a
> new entry on a full PDU.

Ok…but is that documented anywhere?  I may be missing it, but I couldn’t find anything like that in rfc4271 or rfc7606.

Thanks!

Alvaro.