Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)
"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 06:09 UTC
Return-Path: <jheitz@cisco.com>
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 B0FBB12741D; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:09:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 mBE10UrDPK1X; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:09:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF3C8127201; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:09:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=44602; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1510812552; x=1512022152; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=lYvcix35bwtOPyXEh5PiOoKB4F5rUDGsbHj1QvPnlhs=; b=d7fxVeRprNhyGe1v+ubZxtzmXGhQiaQjcdhHsvWZAL+HwoqQbxICWm+Z 3/C5TrC8rTxf8D67CUZWQbNeI8zGDNli9lfougb9Ma0wH0r9gY07Ewfn6 jL1PbC77PKx/YCOXLtltxhxfccSXVfv1lsmBUIrIu1PaoPlaXRfqcYwzQ I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CpAAAPKw1a/4cNJK0WBUMZAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgkRELmRuJweDeIofjyCBfX6VYBCBfgMKGAEKhRgCGoR0PxgBAQEBAQEBAQFrKIUeAQEBAQMBASEKQQsQAgEIEQQBASEBBgMCAgIlCxQJCAEBBAENBQiJOGQQhQekK4InixMBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYM0ggeBVYFpgnU1hGUBDAUCAQZOgl+CYwWKLYk1hTyJGQKHa4NpiSeCHoYKiyWKM4I8iRICERkBgTgBHzhCQXF6FUmCZIJcHBmBTncBiGiBMoERAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,402,1505779200"; d="scan'208,217";a="321263904"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Nov 2017 06:09:00 +0000
Received: from xch-rcd-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAG690ug010474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:09:00 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:08:59 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:08:59 -0600
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
CC: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, "idr-ads@ietf.org" <idr-ads@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)
Thread-Index: AdNcB5lUqir6ZylBRUe7xuFnWiyeYQCRCmeAAAKXf6AADgWzoAAEnWDQ
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:08:59 +0000
Message-ID: <5de035082ecf4b458c53dd543ace3835@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
References: <000901d35c08$3f12d950$bd388bf0$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ER=PnW0-Qr9K4KTY4OAQC6-PQqRcbtc4yABXeRoz0xhw5A@mail.gmail.com> <43b50b8982fe411fa275b294c210edfa@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <13899_1510805003_5A0D0E0B_13899_270_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A478F0F5B@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <13899_1510805003_5A0D0E0B_13899_270_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A478F0F5B@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.32.47]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5de035082ecf4b458c53dd543ace3835XCHALN014ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yhxj7_EkU9nyHJQo7wglPJJzvL8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 16 Nov 2017 06:09:15 -0000
The reason I went further than that is that with extended messages, it's not just about a speaker and its neighbor anymore, it's about a whole BGP space. We should probably go further still and say: BGP speakers that are not using features that specifically require extended messages MUST NOT use extended messages. Thanks, Jakob From: bruno.decraene@orange.com [mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:03 PM To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>; idr-ads@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26) I was thinking of something more along the lines of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7606#section-8 e.g. § Guidance for Authors of BGP Specifications A document that specifies a new BGP attribute that may not fit in a 4096-octet limit MUST provide specifics regarding how to advertise a BGP message larger than 4096 octets to a speaker that does not support Extended Messages. In particular whether the removal of the attribute is allowed/advertised or not. Trade-offs are likely similar to the ones discussed in RFC 7606. In particular, if the attribute in question has or may have an effect on route selection or installation, the presumption is that removing it is unsafe unless careful analysis proves otherwise. -- “Multi-octet fields MUST be in network byte order.” Possibly a reference could be added, specifying this “network byte order”. (especially for a MUST) Thanks, Regards, --Bruno From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jakob Heitz (jheitz) Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:24 AM To: Robert Raszuk; Susan Hares Cc: idr wg; idr-ads@ietf.org<mailto:idr-ads@ietf.org>; idr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:idr-chairs@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26) Good point Robert. How about adding something like: Certain features used by some BGP speakers require the use of extended messages. Such features are indicated with a BGP capability. If a BGP speaker sends an extended message to a second speaker, but that message does not use a feature that requires extended messages, then the contents of that message may not be distributed correctly throughout the BGP space to which that content is targeted. This is because while the immediate neighbor speaker may support extended messages, every BGP speaker within the said BGP space might not support extended messages. For example, a certain BGP feature requires the use of a large BGP attribute. This feature is not supported by every BGP speaker within a BGP space. BGP updates with the large attribute removed might be acceptable to speakers that do not support the feature, even though functionality is reduced without the feature. If such a BGP update is longer than 4096 octets when the large attribute is removed, then it cannot be distributed to those speakers. To prevent the failures outlined above, a BGP speaker SHOULD not generate a message that is longer than 4096 octets if a feature that requires extended messages is not used. Furthermore, a BGP speaker SHOULD not generate a message that cannot be reduced to 4096 octets or less by another speaker that needs to remove the feature that requires extended messages. Thanks, Jakob From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 5:56 AM To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>; idr-ads@ietf.org<mailto:idr-ads@ietf.org>; idr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:idr-chairs@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26) Hi, I am concerned with the lack of clear description of what router which supports extended msg should do when on one side he receives an attribute bigger then 4K and not of all it's peers can handle it. IMO the below statement is true but a bit too vague: "Therefore putting an attribute which can not be decomposed to 4096 octets or less in an Extended Message is a likely path to routing failure. " And the worst part is that the BGP speaker which in fact generated such attribute be it on purpose or by error will not find out that its propagation has failed one or N hops away. Today when one is trying to inject msg over 4K (say due to a bug) it will fail locally, generate syslog etc ... Any comments from authors and WG on that ? Thx, R. On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote: This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26). Please note this draft has at least 2 implementations. Please comment on whether you feel this draft is ready for publication. Susan Hares PS – the request for this WG LC is at: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg18801.html _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
- [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extend… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Job Snijders
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… heasley
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Randy Bush
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Randy Bush
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Job Snijders
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Job Snijders
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Job Snijders
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Job Snijders
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Randy Bush
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Randy Bush
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Thomas Mangin
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Thomas Mangin
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Thomas Mangin
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Thomas Mangin
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Thomas Mangin
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Thomas Mangin
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Job Snijders
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Job Snijders
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Randy Bush
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Borchert, Oliver (Fed)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Borchert, Oliver (Fed)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Borchert, Oliver (Fed)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Randy Bush
- Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ex… Susan Hares