Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09

Alvaro Retana <> Fri, 19 March 2021 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228303A1007; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QHDvWvf3VV25; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D0FA3A0FFB; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u9so11807638ejj.7; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MJ9w+0Bxtvhw80ivVUqjVv9NOePeQPKWUA1XPQVzbpI=; b=kjkRq5QPwGfzGivwmltLu5infwyI01kGnvK6fC/eN0ucji9h0A89pbZWsWIGkKulW7 vHKhKyf/7sn0Wut34ChwN3LWAr7a4AlHRjxjH2UHEpMSAMYaWbKKtsHNeyRuD+peEoUC ws87J1OWpjT6UbURMFSK549kFFAUxHmxcFMGuR3zvTKgAimVYl8DYD6ZBS+SZPxf9Onn qYsCwJTfazIPEEj+/8nxHDuDk1f5InBCuyGDHa14B3naANlvvsSekV1I5mGdTFuxyaeN xgYD6+a0DWOkvjpaGu7vekex0CXQJnasG/cAf6dIACBEY5+JuRE5ImGzf2Jvrk59zpii skzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MJ9w+0Bxtvhw80ivVUqjVv9NOePeQPKWUA1XPQVzbpI=; b=fhmZ5iDMIq4dclSNYLVazTTRVnut+SVi1iEa3t3cQ6LnYgJuwaHDkvi82Z2SIEqlgT 5GL2JYC1dTG9UawCsAzaG5UqrPMHECpeG27cDAKa6BqKgWrlt7qHcEQsFRUhaCA2WMIw Iu5GnR27j5flMsz5nQZCpZL/BVnR+qtozXXa6tICtyAxpgtak0MEfCZsjQN7GCBNib1N 1yEdhcRzuDA+PEfx+gJg6cWKTmPSgoMxY/vCqTrRBimRrwk7YaseEMZhkKK/L4swsMUs DBbXnnYzFlhA90D1d/2WjUdrugZvJorSzF0U0WWuWTTEyHIHqyY9TcFtio5dOQQlwNy6 OAcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531NQE8OrwVdeXlaXq9nKOy68Vcayzz5QqcrL6u1O7gECBy/chAy JJI2fqNenU0YzJOaXxWUWT+H4ckZaCi2HQq22bY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdkt1XqLCZUzA3bbymwik+5/rzj9A/Ddoef4RSCpfG3SDn9+jBe5BZx91uPFCWrOcCKAvuIOQFtbiPtu2ccdw=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f01:: with SMTP id z1mr6742912eji.235.1616187249920; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:54:09 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:54:09 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Jeffrey Haas <>
Cc: Susan Hares <>,, "" <>, IDR List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec0be205bde9eae6"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 20:54:14 -0000


Yes, you’re right.

Are you suggesting that we don’t need that extension in this document, or
that we don’t need it at all?  I would be fine with it not being in this
document — not a high priority, but it is something we probably want to get
to at some point.



On March 19, 2021 at 9:09:46 AM, Jeffrey Haas ( wrote:


On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:54:46PM -0700, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> 78 2.  Protocol Extensions
> ...
> 83   In the event that the length of Optional Parameters in the BGP OPEN
> 84   message does not exceed 255, the encodings of the base BGP
> 85   specification [RFC4271] MUST be used without alteration.  However,
> 86   implementation MUST be prepared to accept an OPEN message that uses
> 87   the encoding of this specification for Optional Parameters of any
> 88   length.
> [major] "MUST be prepared to accept an OPEN message...of any length."
> The OPEN message is not covered by rfc8654, so the length is still
> limited to 4k...which means that the full Extended OP length/Parameter
> Length cannot be used.
> Besides clarifying that, I think that new OPEN Message Error subcodes
> are needed for the cases where the length is invalid.  This type of
> error is possible in the non-extended version of the OPEN too -- I
> guess rfc4271 just assumed that this error would never happen.

Speaking as a vendor with an implementation here, we currently send
"Unsupported Optional Parameter". A new sub-code would be fine to help with
diagnostics, but that's all it would do. The BGP FSM is still getting a
NOTIFICATION to drop the session.

I think the headache you're highlighting is we have two conditions we can
get to here:

1. The length is unacceptable, but fits in the PDU.
2. There's an overrrun of the optional paramters vs. the encapsulating
BGP message.

-- Jeff