Re: [Idr] BGP Auto-Discovery Protocol State Requirements

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 19 March 2021 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 9AAC13A1681 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8i7BlZy5-sHt for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 07:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822363A1678 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 07:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 29C591E446; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:46:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:46:57 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210319144657.GO29692@pfrc.org>
References: <20210316210203.GC29692@pfrc.org> <20210318191936.GF29692@pfrc.org> <A288921D-0DB5-413D-B3E9-4DAA9334C5D3@cisco.com> <CA+wi2hNUYkmruBSq4Up4e84H__d48Phxj5TuZXh7wii0QrS3dw@mail.gmail.com> <20210319135025.GK29692@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMGndgwqLoV_Un_1Bu3F3xPkg9ZD6=4V5FmYJgQiPD_1yw@mail.gmail.com> <20210319143448.GM29692@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMFKqpZCyzDbGr0JzZLu7sjEw9NBQ=J9rTqDOuP+Yf1mog@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMFKqpZCyzDbGr0JzZLu7sjEw9NBQ=J9rTqDOuP+Yf1mog@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uIaN5PFhlcgcq0GnKH2AEjT6_1w>
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP Auto-Discovery Protocol State Requirements
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:25:27 -0000

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:22:05PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> >
> > As noted at the beginning of this thread, you may not be able to get your
> > SYN+ACK if you don't agree on security mechanisms or GTSM.  So, you need
> > that state either in your discovery mechanism, or your provisioning.
> >
> 
> You keep bringing GTSM here.
> 
> Aren't both DC nodes we are to establish a BGP session between under the
> very same administration ? I don't get the need to put this in
> auto discovery if we are sticking to the scope.

You've already given an example of a provider you've worked with in this
context that wanted to use TCP-MD5.  The same question could be asked there.

*YOU* may think it's out of scope.  That doesn't mean other providers do.

The proposal must be able to support GTSM, or no GTSM.  If, for some reason,
you are thinking the draft says you MUST use GTSM and you MUST use BFD, that
is not the intent of the text.

-- Jeff