Re: [Idr] Early MIB Dr. Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-06.txt

"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Wed, 14 May 2008 17:42 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 [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D023D3A686E; Wed, 14 May 2008 10:42:08 -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 0447D3A67F6 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2008 10:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.743
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.743 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.256, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6]
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 W1QutBYVvHYy for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2008 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98273A68B1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2008 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Trace: 27299063/mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$ACCEPTED/pipex-temporary-group/213.116.52.194
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 213.116.52.194
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAIPBKkjVdDTC/2dsb2JhbACLU6NhBA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,487,1204502400"; d="scan'208";a="27299063"
X-IP-Direction: IN
Received: from 1cust194.tnt102.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net (HELO allison) ([213.116.52.194]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with SMTP; 14 May 2008 18:40:44 +0100
Message-ID: <00ba01c8b5e0$a4dfeee0$0601a8c0@allison>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>
References: <06f701c88b5b$22622000$6601a8c0@JoanPC> <20080503223750.GG23560@scc.mi.org> <006b01c8b5a6$e92b8080$0601a8c0@allison> <20080514141532.GA12883@scc.mi.org>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 16:48:21 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early MIB Dr. Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-06.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:15 PM

> Tom,
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:41:15AM +0200, tom.petch wrote:
> > Jeff
> >
> > As far as I can see, there is but one place where working group feedback is
> > requested and that is for
> > > 5) InetAddress/InetAddressType
> > but I am unclear what point you are asking about:-(
>
> Specifically:
>
> > OBJECT bgpPeerAfLocalAddr
> > SYNTAX InetAddress (SIZE(4|16|20))
> > DESCRIPTION
> >     "An implementation is required to support IPv4 peering
> >      sessions.  An implementation MAY support IPv6 peering
> >      sessions.  IPv6 link-local peering sessions MAY
> >      supported by this MIB."
> >
> > The reason for this wording is that we've never come to proper
> > consensus
> > about ipv6-only routers.
>
> I don't have any issues with moving the sizes into the conformance
> statements.  My question specifically is about what we'd require in the MIB
> for peering session support.
>
> The BGP-4 spec pretty much says you're going to have your peering
> sessions via TCP on IPv4.
>
> We know you can do IPv6-only peering sessions.  Further, there has been
> some experimentation (largely related to IXes I think) that were IPv6
> link local only peering.
>
> The above language is intended to say:
> 1) You must support IPv4 peering sessions.
>
> I think this is implied by the BGP-4 spec.  However, that might be
> inconsistent at a later date by people who have IPv6 only routers.  This
> is, admittedly, looking far into the future.
>
> 2) You can support IPv6 peering sessions.  That's not really called out
> in any specific spec but is bourne out by operational practice.  I don't
> believe this is controversial.  However, the working group may not want
> this in the MIB.
>
> 3) You can support IPv6 link local peering sessions.  The only draft
> that I remember on the topic is long expired.  There were some
> operational details that weren't controversial but do have impact on
> RFC 2545 behaviors.  The working group may choose to say "no, we don't
> want this in the MIB at all".
>

Understand; I do not have a view, seeing very little IPv6 and then only
experimental.  Since this is a functional question about BGP4, and not one about
the MIB, you might want to resend this message with a different title, in order
to circumvent those whose blacklists include such words as 'MIB' and 'SNMP' :-)

I think that the current wording is a fudge - 'is required to' for Ipv4, MAY for
IPv6.  I think that the former needs turning into a RFC2119 word, but do not
know which it should be.

Tom Petch


> > Tom Petch
>
> -- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr