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

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
    >     
    > 