Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 08 October 2020 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 34E813A0AAF; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=hDymdmpH; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=OxXUtVry
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 KBINznTxWsTP; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 487C73A0AB2; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094507AE; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 21:51:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 07 Oct 2020 21:51:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=x 6OKewq6XXY7D5r6hVbUExwWuvhyYSJhFe2Ie0mBEqs=; b=hDymdmpH7hbRgFlNS sLk74yzGQDcuUkO7vgAyHgd39YeT5WjjYtYOO3ptlaao+Hq7suBF3NcGXr4/5MaS JUHv8bilCiVUuIusuOOo9zlREqOMSTLQve/mI10Q9DrbXyrkDjcrI1XwuUbIohmr 8QrfkKbSMmARCHsyceNWUxABccXAKfPO1NRNLIG5psugQPRMc0O1DW8qPxQc6NFL P2VEHWPeuaMzkxZdsNHD7I1eiCpa32/B8g72mRIxjAFFmUuLq12vIWebtKHcd61G HrIsqIEAw1S5jogJc1LRe3JFrWabKyac0NnjQHHnDW2hUswavvZBThQSzdZ4e8H1 pWsCg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=x6OKewq6XXY7D5r6hVbUExwWuvhyYSJhFe2Ie0mBE qs=; b=OxXUtVrycJzdV3jcU1tBGew39uea32Y2cO48lWG4SSa/ETFMKB8IMo6uv C8Te5FJ7oW4tJI0QioLV3M8NqJptfNv5ZLLsXUJBALMYBVGwatfmJLMuOqqLuzPG qIPD2uMWUpudoM5bRp/8mP2WOgpwvkX4+Z7CiE57Mwo/JJqOfH9ixwPTKrzpifZE o9IG7M0hj2fFwDNIaqQzMiFD1Nvn8gXWuxNnHs7Kyg2OqjYujhFhg1eK8RB1Skyd k6M+7e81ZR8E9ksVDLRfyV14lChzZjQItoX3//X5SVJwzpqWXOEv5rON69QpNzca RZMKn1ANyAPk6BpATE7u9YHTRrSCQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:r3B-X2eEHowHIUmZqYzeb5bzrpgWeH-XBHjzSIYC26T8yUL1yiP1xg> <xme:r3B-XwMG3bwkSULMgQr4RD5ebza-iDyyXgv8KohbbOj2_-LOm7svi3pZ0RC3orswD aRCpyqzbdeB2ZrcPA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrgeejgdehudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhs rgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepgfeutdektefhkeelheehteehvdekkeettddvvdejgffhieekffeggeevfeeu gedtnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepuddtkedrhedurddutddurd elkeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegr lhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhn
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:r3B-X3iZphnHaA13rmDiNoXX9J-h95GPNs-lD74GdozWqAQCAZiCvw> <xmx:r3B-Xz-UVGnSQk19U_8WPG1yVmZumxPnqICA3tMCof9tYDhkPxxWEg> <xmx:r3B-Xyt9i16PwA6U-UKJVJ5lker_osDp3eIX_dd9zNSMW2q-H5MuZw> <xmx:r3B-X0JP1-8oZPxixF3MnLzxXssSN1_i2AKLiVEkue-mA4wn3WZygA>
Received: from alcoop-m-c46z.fios-router.home (pool-108-51-101-98.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.101.98]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 065B1328005A; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 21:51:43 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB3207D6A626288B19FC942171C00B0@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 21:51:42 -0400
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D8FB407E-6B24-452E-AADD-B76A52245329@cooperw.in>
References: <160211580198.31310.1253552691445772469@ietfa.amsl.com> <BYAPR11MB3207D6A626288B19FC942171C00B0@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ubBGvhjx8XbQ0Jx4Pa65lqKrPC8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 01:51:47 -0000


> On Oct 7, 2020, at 8:59 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> There is no way to know whether the neighbor supports RFC8203 either,
> so the problem is not unique to the bis.

Ok. How do operators decide whether to use RFC 8203 and, if this document is approved, how long of a message to use?

Alissa

> 
> This is a best-effort message for convenience.
> The session is going down whether the message makes it or not.
> If the peer operator is confused, he will pick up the phone and
> call the NOC or whatever else they do today.
> The message prevents that phone call.
> When maintenance is scheduled, it should be agreed upon beforehand,
> so both ends should be expecting the cease notification anyway.
> This message serves only as a reminder in case people don't read their email and such.
> 
> Regards,
> Jakob.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 5:10 PM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; aretana.ietf@gmail.com; shares@ndzh.com
> Subject: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "If a Shutdown Communication longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP
>   speaker that implements [RFC8203], then that speaker will treat it as
>   an error, the consequence of which is a log message.  For this
>   reason, operators would be wise to keep shutdown communications to
>   less than 128 octets when feasible."
> 
> I have a similar question to what Éric asked. Doesn't the above mostly undercut
> the value of doing this bis at all? If operators can't expect longer messages
> to be understood, will they implement some kind of policy logic or heuristics
> to decide when to try to send them and when not? Otherwise, under what
> circumstances will they send them?
> 
> Was it considered to instead add a new subcode to the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
> subcode registry to capture this case (admin reset or shutdown with long
> shutdown message)? That way at least those who want to use it can differentiate
> between recipients that don't support RFC 8203, those that do, and those that
> support longer communications. I'm not at all steeped in BGP so I'm happy to
> drop this if it's unworkable, but I wanted to ask.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> For the IESG: it would be good to discuss a bit if there is some process we can
> use to avoid this kind of oversight (that occurred with RFC 8203) in the
> future. i18ndir didn't exist when it was published, but even if it had I'm not
> sure we would have caught this.
> 
> 
>