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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 13 April 2016 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 8D31212E237; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 c5vej7fumv-c; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77ED12E233; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 05:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 79A0E1E478; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:01:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:01:28 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Message-ID: <20160413130128.GB9940@pfrc.org>
References: <22090_1460547160_570E2E58_22090_19743_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0F86D10D@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <22090_1460547160_570E2E58_22090_19743_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0F86D10D@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/y28wtxv8J_bNVndFhQMAq2aJoKg>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Idr] 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 12:57:09 -0000

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:32:40AM +0000, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
> Could the draft clarifies the BGP Route Reflector behavior when reflecting a route received from a buggy 3107 implementation with S=0?
> a) One may argue that the RR should not modify the NLRI and hence reflect the route with S=0
> b) One may argue that the RR should reflect the route after setting S=1 in order to be a speaker compliant with 3107bis & 3107.
> c) One may argue that this is an error and treat the IP Prefix as withdraw
> 
> IMO I think I would prefer b) in order to not propagate the bug.

Normally I would argue for c.  What I'm really curious about is
implementations that may not be setting end-of-stack currently for their
3107.

Time to read what our code does upon receipt.

-- Jeff