Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt
Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com> Thu, 06 February 2014 18:06 UTC
Return-Path: <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5451A0213 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:06:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 g9MATG51euJu for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:06:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DFED1A01EA for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:06:20 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c618062d-b7f858e0000031c7-02-52f3cf1777c9
Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 03.20.12743.71FC3F25; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:06:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:06:18 -0500
From: Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>
To: "Keyur Patel (keyupate)" <keyupate@cisco.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPHefuyl4e2PkcMUKSCY4dU5/By5qd6KaAgArO0ICAAAPIgIAACMkAgAAcBAD//7BfkA==
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:06:18 +0000
Message-ID: <2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E02F7D1BD@eusaamb109.ericsson.se>
References: <20140206161054.GE23551@pfrc> <CF190B56.62E01%keyupate@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF190B56.62E01%keyupate@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt67E+c9BBm+OCVi8uv2MyWL/wbes Fo1bz7NZ/HnzisWBxWPK742sHkuW/GTymP36OqvH5d6trAEsUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZK7q/ sxVMlatYs+YeawPjaYkuRk4OCQETieO3e1kgbDGJC/fWs3UxcnEICRxhlLh0azcrhLOMUWLX y2WMIFVsAjoS3653MYPYIgKFEj9etLKC2MwCihIX/3YwgdjCAs4Su/7/ZYWocZH4e7+fEcIO kzi1dy9YL4uAikR/63+wel4BX4kL3e/A6oWA7Plz14LVcAoYSHQ/eQpmMwJd9/3UGiaIXeIS t57MZ4K4WkBiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx/9YIWwliUlLz0HdpiOxYPcnNghbW2LZwtfMEHsFJU7OfMIy gVFsFpKxs5C0zELSMgtJywJGllWMHKXFqWW56UYGmxiB8XRMgk13B+Oel5aHGKU5WJTEeb+8 dQ4SEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2KLyrNSS0+xMjEwSnVwLjbp+q+43HJLTMD8zz/Lxf99F3o2D+vXxrh ZX55KxOKFz9lKGRbzGux7RLv6QT5R4FrV86t/Z/+MHPqvpX1s312rt3TfNFuUucE/enB257U KrtMeLZm4dbyg/YMew7NNbjWtPjE/7Q0o/nrw14u7T/Q1c4Y723+SEJ/CmtJkHD79Y8a2uky P3YosRRnJBpqMRcVJwIADuk+THUCAAA=
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:06:22 -0000
support -----Original Message----- From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keyur Patel (keyupate) Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:51 AM To: Jeffrey Haas; Susan Hares Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt Hi Jeff, As part of rev 6, we added the following to Section 4: <snip> The following procedures are specified in order to simplify the interaction with the BGP Graceful Restart [RFC4724]. For a BGP speaker that supports the BGP Graceful Restart, it MUST NOT send a BoRR for an AFI/SAFI to a neighbor before it sends the EOR for the AFI/SAFI to the neighbor. A BGP speaker that has received the Graceful Restart Capability from its neighbor, MUST ignore any BoRRs for an AFI/SAFI from the neighbor before the speaker receives the EoR for the given AFI/SAFI from the neighbor. The BGP speaker SHOULD log an error of the condition for further analysis. <snip> Regards, Keyur On 2/6/14 8:10 AM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote: >On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:39:27AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote: >> Jeff: >> >> Please provide more details on your opinion on this information to >>the >>list: > >Sure. :-) > >> "Personally, I think it'd be wise to not process the enhanced RR >>procedures until GR is complete but I think that can be an >>implementation decision." >> (The justification is that there's a *lot* of work going on while >>processing GR and it's more valuable to get RIBs in some initial >>state of synchronization rather than worry about trying to fill in >>holes that might be present in the midst of it.) > >When a router that is assisting with a graceful restart, it has to do >several expensive things: >- Mark all routes received from that peer stale. >- Receive all routes again from that peer. >- Upon EoR (per family), sweep all stale routes not otherwise refreshed. > >In a non-multisession peering environment, you have one TCP socket >between you and the restarting peer. Presuming more than one AFI/SAFI >negotiated (lets say IPv4 unicast and L3VPN), even if you've finished >refreshing IPv4 unicast and could service a enhanced route refresh for >that family, you're still doing a lot of work trying to shove routes >down the socket for L3VPN. > >Even if you presume you ignore CPU or route-queueing efficiencies for >an implementation (let's say that some IPv4 Unicast is queued ahead of >other stuff), to service the refresh for those important routes you'd >still push off initial convergence of L3VPN. Whether this is wise is >clearly an implementation choice. > >Implementations are free to interleave queued routes as they wish and >there are competing motivations as to why they'd want to servicing >things in a given way. But in abstract, delaying initial convergence >seems unwise. > >An implementation would be free to queue the work requested for a >enhanced route refresh and not interrupt GR resync. That requires no >changes to the spec. > >The spec could offer the opinion that you probably should do this, >rather than allowing a refresh to interrupt GR procedures (which impact >timers) by reinserting routes that have been sent at least once into >the queue. But that gets pretty deep into implementation. Trying to >be normative here (RFC >2119 language) seems unwise since it simply puts an implementor into a >pedantic vice useful only to make test tool vendors happy. > >-- Jeff >_______________________________________________ >Idr mailing list >Idr@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
- [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-0… Keyur Patel (keyupate)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refre… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refre… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refre… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refre… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refre… Keyur Patel (keyupate)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refre… Jakob Heitz
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refre… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refre… Keyur Patel (keyupate)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refre… Jeffrey Haas
- [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-0… Susan Hares