Re: [Idr] new thread regarding capabilities handling

Robert Raszuk <> Thu, 27 April 2017 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42EF129520 for <>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JwBRZB-Xy3x1 for <>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1110C1294F7 for <>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k87so22939901ioi.0 for <>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=rRF4CTsGMPGa0mX3WoXdbK+eXXvytYCa4t3i6X9VacU=; b=JI6gXvH2ztw6sJAmAw4zn857ufTisCB0imRBf0FMJpwbdmV9n4bC7jTaWVDcRStBle a/7+26WKRPVNdKHOb8KzmjzNaTT7f/Viui70HWpU9i5sVQmi5ntBRyxHRkZgdFD/+H94 vWtSRpiFp/dNofZz9df0gEM9fmNK1nHO9uA0p0p/yKQ7+SNX+LyYJnKKcknI5499gCnG DnUKACdUGIcoY1GUh/IqvCMCm0sQKmqKJ4eZ2EwBR4uclPexMKQIC4ca4JATDKV4aTsG 6Rv253gLBcsYZldCGtYRvODN08yJZH5du3QMlSfGqWXgp+9f4NPib2FxctzYR6vxBtxY 4cWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rRF4CTsGMPGa0mX3WoXdbK+eXXvytYCa4t3i6X9VacU=; b=tYlC5CQIVFRqYtN329SIJwnNmnIO0oRe3TKYrMBR7K9FzMLnMVbd0M8lPvpIz6vYFl WyG/SmP260q83BrB0RFRSX5hT30Waa/AgYtkw6Jp2LAQaIXgLxsNa090YyDpM1feD1ya dIyWLNLxFME66u9BT51EbGbf+2J7cSO3PX7tnO+mmkA5mXvLvhKjxXF1binqR6SdHae4 HmSYrr7/vE2eiOcX/NgJHdaL4mzpMZ9+mILhJMXO9Ad86s1E4Ze8XphkuiIezCkCjhM5 0x2dZjM3HuLVJw5kKJTpGj9ghBj58u4Mp5OCILK2jtzxabYxkEW4JOeW6g4kluExnZ9Z aK9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/49IewAfm36oMaWK6PeTGN2VWv4QCwHPQoWdXg3VmfyyODUnr7S 11P79iYkD6sKyipU2C0X4Rc9mqnw1Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 12mr154320iof.186.1493300698432; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:44:57 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: YmODRNTsUIaHVWnmqjUpJXCFRkk
Message-ID: <>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
Cc: Enke Chen <>, idr wg <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ef634ac721a054e262983
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] new thread regarding capabilities handling
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:45:02 -0000

> What's the back story here? This is obviously a well-known understood
> problem then for 16 years already, why don't we still have this in 2017?

​Since you asked :) ....

1. Actually number of customers asked for it various vendors however non of
them showed sufficient money so naturally features which are not associated
with significant revenue are not that high on anyone's list (unless BGP
code you are maintaining is your hobby).

2. If we talking intra-domian in most cases ​you go via RRs. And it is a
good practice to configure your RR side either with multiple loopbacks or
even different contexts for each address family so each SAFI is independent
from one another. That way within your domain you can add/delete AFI/SAFIs
without impacting others. Moreover in case of using multiple context (VMs
or LXCs for reflection) you get multithreading across SAFIs for free too.

3. And last in general what really matters is to continue forwarding
packets and not to impact your other peers by BGP session reset. And here
comes quite well supported feature BGP Graceful Restart (RFC4724) It is
applicable for both iBGP and eBGP peers. And honestly many networks still
do not have it enabled even though it has been shipping for long time in
most major BGP code basis.

Kind regards,