Re: [mpls] [bess] draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis

<bruno.decraene@orange.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9EEC12D581; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 WbEGc7Wcn4yP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3836512DC5A; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id AEAA818C579; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:32:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.57]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 89D6927C073; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:32:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e92a:c932:907e:8f06]) by OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::787e:db0c:23c4:71b3%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0279.002; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:32:37 +0200
From: bruno.decraene@orange.com
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [bess] draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis
Thread-Index: AQHRhfj1qHf38G7z/0eG06bIad1uvp9p2nRAgBylsnA=
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:32:36 +0000
Message-ID: <20147_1460547157_570E2E55_20147_8686_2_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0F86D106@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <3515_1458832652_56F4050B_3515_774_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0F819B1E@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <56F42E71.9020201@juniper.net> <9656_1458905159_56F52047_9656_7014_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0F81AAA7@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <9656_1458905159_56F52047_9656_7014_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0F81AAA7@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.4.13.105417
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/_Ln91KWKCEMdRljfslb3wyFARtw>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [bess] draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:38:31 -0000

From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:erosen@juniper.net]
> the "day 1" bugs do exist


Do we really have implementation not setting the S bit on the sending side??
I don't see how this could be per design, as I fail to see a reason:
- sending with S=1 or S=0 has the same cost from an implementation perspective, so this is not a "simplification" issue
- sending with S=0 is a clear violation of RFC 3107 and will trigger a BGP session shutdown from a peer compliant with 3107, so this does not seem like a desirable goal from an implementation standpoint.

Now, that could be a bug, but that bug would be detected with the first interoperability test with a compliant RFC 3107 implementation...

So, how have we got into this situation? How can we be there 15 years after the publication of RFC 3107?

Thanks
-- Bruno





_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.