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

"Borchert, Oliver (Fed)" <oliver.borchert@nist.gov> Wed, 08 March 2017 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <oliver.borchert@nist.gov>
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 A7C93129482; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:21:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.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 XkLArFKhAubt; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:21:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gcc01-dm2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm2gcc01on0129.outbound.protection.outlook.com [23.103.201.129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BCBA129447; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:21:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=SpyyREOUdSbdoseV7nYDTqVuY6CrjbqvtnQPK+peLT0=; b=ypoPspRlfnry9KjeQyWR/79/2JgeKkLdeivgiqv+q4ixQBqXGLJz84jsBzPbeR9GVoysGc/D0a0/98gn58CcLAm7raWu6P7YFWq7XvFQ5VtUt71sixR4y4cfQMLo8OmdF8zj41u6DvLXCUwNjLCue1W6jJ8rf74yPJbG/HMoUtc=
Received: from BL2PR09MB0996.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.167.102.15) by BL2PR09MB0995.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.167.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.947.12; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 01:21:14 +0000
Received: from BL2PR09MB0996.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.102.15]) by BL2PR09MB0996.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.102.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0947.020; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 01:21:14 +0000
From: "Borchert, Oliver (Fed)" <oliver.borchert@nist.gov>
To: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20
Thread-Index: AQHSjglrFbHoeYS2WUyxb/MV1DegzqF+8PqAgAlhrgCAAEiTgIAAnkCAgAA/eoCAABXogIAAAp8AgAACk4CAAAAMgIAANcUA////qgCAAFVAgP//xd8A
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 01:21:14 +0000
Message-ID: <C83C3A72-5059-4345-B0E7-AB7F9FD48E53@nist.gov>
References: <DAEE98CC-8483-499E-B71C-FE4C6FC15A4A@cisco.com> <20170228210627.GB17448@pfrc.org> <3eb4d853-1d44-6250-c70a-26f60eac39e6@cisco.com> <006e01d296db$a7c4c320$f74e4960$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ERmddHoq+4FmU+Ct3MhH46om8yUt69EoQMyLnzweHF=JgQ@mail.gmail.com> <010101d2974a$8520d060$8f627120$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ERnejrof2dfvb4YuKpWieLxWOF7mTXkZpaOgJc=y=2V+XA@mail.gmail.com> <018c01d29756$c8b4f610$5a1ee230$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ER=r6tF3t-THjN_zz5hOLETRV5MjpcoEo+79exeafWBNfQ@mail.gmail.com> <01b301d29758$180458e0$480d0aa0$@ndzh.com> <e2fd2bc1-94fa-66fb-e2f0-668ee5a1f1a1@cisco.com> <CE23F9A0-DC7B-4AC1-A6E4-6BF5A287B71D@nist.gov> <7657b686-0685-9bdf-17ba-e7d618a237aa@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7657b686-0685-9bdf-17ba-e7d618a237aa@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cisco.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nist.gov;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [71.114.41.213]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 62003def-6098-4d15-07ad-08d465c16a1b
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081); SRVR:BL2PR09MB0995;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BL2PR09MB0995; 7:jctdo6tdIe4fxPHKcGBsBndBgpnuXZMHWwO9nz3Chn4ifWhv7FfNjz5I7mmeH/mEU/rRC/CVo6ErXEljG2Jn9HRG0v2iidAurd/e+MnY3AzzhEC771WATGdRgbKpYI7VJg07rVq6YcBeJ3ypyHlaMvEhprylzozvu6pyGza8/0PsoDfsVzesp8QNgATLXYwV7YoxfyLNlJSO+JWVU1i2KFQgRvbRZcJlcbn4Sqp32Q6soJ6F1LbQgDE5JbeiDMm/p9gZmPyi5T44fttX0r3BFs1P66NHKUYqXNjIwrKUjFITYpsBHx/M83Xk1+j3VDbGzsqrEgby1CAhrvj/QkAENA==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL2PR09MB0995F53D44EFDA382847D7DE982E0@BL2PR09MB0995.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123558025)(6072148); SRVR:BL2PR09MB0995; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BL2PR09MB0995;
x-forefront-prvs: 02408926C4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39410400002)(39450400003)(39850400002)(39860400002)(39840400002)(51914003)(24454002)(377454003)(189998001)(66066001)(83716003)(6506006)(77096006)(6916009)(6486002)(53546006)(229853002)(4001350100001)(2950100002)(86362001)(76176999)(2900100001)(83506001)(81166006)(122556002)(8676002)(50986999)(54356999)(82746002)(8936002)(5660300001)(3280700002)(106116001)(15650500001)(3660700001)(33656002)(93886004)(230783001)(99286003)(110136004)(53936002)(36756003)(54906002)(38730400002)(6306002)(6512007)(6436002)(6246003)(25786008)(305945005)(4326008)(3846002)(6116002)(102836003)(7736002)(2906002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR09MB0995; H:BL2PR09MB0996.namprd09.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <ADCD12A1E867A04D9644EEFE68B4B7AF@namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nist.gov
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Mar 2017 01:21:14.8707 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2PR09MB0995
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/svepdDZfl6gUcbAOrjXpsSJsWSY>
Cc: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org>, 'Robert Raszuk' <robert@raszuk.net>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 01:21:19 -0000

Enke,

thanks for the pointer. With this in mind, it makes perfectly sense then to have all bgp messages included rather than “cherry picking” some of them.

Oliver

On 3/7/17, 6:49 PM, "Enke Chen" <enkechen@cisco.com>; wrote:

    Please check out the following document:
    
    Extended Optional Parameters Length for BGP OPEN Message
    draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-02
    
    -- Enke
    
    On 3/7/17 3:44 PM, Borchert, Oliver (Fed) wrote:
    > I am wondering – according to RFC 4271, how can an OPEN message ever exceed 284 bytes?
    > The bgp message header has 19 bytes and the OPEN message payload adds 10. This is 29, then the only 
    > addition here are the Optional Parameters which cannot exceed 255 bytes combined due to the 1 byte length field.
    > 
    > Therefore, an open message cannot exceed 284 bytes and if larger than 284 bytes, wouldn’t it be invalid. 
    > 
    > In this regard, I don’t really understand the whole discussion about allowing an OPEN message larger than 4K. 
    > It shouldn’t even be larger than 284 bytes?  Maybe I am missing something.
    > 
    > BTW, same is true for KEEPALIVE (max 19 bytes)
    > 
    > Oliver
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > On 3/7/17, 1:45 PM, "Idr on behalf of Enke Chen" <idr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of enkechen@cisco.com>; wrote:
    > 
    >     Hi, Folks:
    >     
    >     o There is no extra work for a receiver to cover message types other than UPDATE.
    >     o There is a little bit work for a sender that wishes to send a large OPEN (e.g.,
    >       using the prior capability and possibly subsequent NOTIFICATION).
    >     
    >     Additionally, I do not see a need to touch on the FSM specified in RFC 4271 even
    >     in the case of sending a large OPEN, which potentially may involve two separate
    >     consecutive sessions but each session would just follow the existing FSM.
    >     
    >     Thanks.   -- Enke
    >     
    >     On 3/7/17 7:32 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
    >     > Robert:
    >     > 
    >     > <individual contributor’s hat on>
    >     > 
    >     > Yep  - Easier to just include all messages.  
    >     > 
    >     >  
    >     > 
    >     > Sue
    >     > 
    >     >  
    >     > 
    >     > *From:*rraszuk@gmail.com [mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk
    >     > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2017 10:33 AM
    >     > *To:* Susan Hares
    >     > *Cc:* Randy Bush; Enke Chen; Jeffrey Haas; Alvaro Retana (aretana); idr-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org; idr wg
    >     > *Subject:* Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20
    >     > 
    >     >  
    >     > 
    >     > Hi Sue,
    >     > 
    >     >  
    >     > 
    >     >> My suggestion is to include all messages including future messages if approved.  
    >     > 
    >     >  
    >     > 
    >     > Ahh then it is great - we are in sync ! 
    >     > 
    >     >  
    >     > 
    >     > My other comments were just an opinion ... but if it is easier to extend all messages then perfect. 
    >     > 
    >     >  
    >     > 
    >     > Cheers,
    >     > 
    >     > R.
    >     > 
    >     >  
    >     > 
    >     >  
    >     > 
    >     
    >     _______________________________________________
    >     Idr mailing list
    >     Idr@ietf.org
    >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
    >     
    >