Re: [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06

["Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keyur Patel (keyupate) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:11 AM
> To: Zhangdacheng (Dacheng); [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06
> 
> Hi Dacheng,
> 
> Thanks a lot for the draft review. My comments are inlined. #Keyur
> 
> On 5/31/14 12:06 AM, "Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)"
> <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
> >I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> >ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> >These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
> >area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
> >comments just like any other last call comments.
> >
> >This short document tries to enhance the existing BGP route refresh
> >mechanisms to provide for the demarcation of the beginning and the
> >ending of a route refresh. In order to achieve this, the "Reserved"
> >field of the ROUTE-REFRESH message is redefined to indicate the
> >beginning and the ending of a route refresh. I agree this extension
> >will not introduce new security issues to the BGP protocol.
> >
> >The document is clear. I consider it ready with a few issues:
> >
> >I suggest defining how a BGP speaker should handle a EoRR without
> >receiving the associated BoRR especially when the peer does not support
> >graceful start.
> 
> #Keyur: The received EoRR message without an associated BoRR message
> would pretty much be a no-op operation (as no routes are marked Stale). This
> behavior is consistent with/without GR.
> 
> How about if we add the following line (Section 4, end of 5th paragraph
> after: "Such purged routes MAY be logged for future analysis.")
> 
> A BGP speaker MAY ignore any EoRR message received without a prior receipt
> of an associated BoRR message. Such messages MAY be logged for future
> analysis.
> 
[Dacheng Zhang:] That is good. 
> 
> >
> >
> >The description in the last paragraph of section 4 is not very clear.
> >It would be better to briefly explain why the introduced procedures can
> >simplify the interaction with the BGP Graceful Restart. In addition,
> >the EOR and EoR messages (the typos of EoRR?) mentioned in this
> >paragraph are not defined elsewhere.
> 
> Keyur: Good Point. How about adding the 2nd (clarification) line to the last
> paragraph of section 4:
> 
> 
> The following procedures are specified in order to simplify the
>    interaction with the BGP Graceful Restart [RFC4724].  In particular,
>    these procedures ensure that
>    End-of-RIB (³EoR²) defined in Graceful Restart and EoRR as defined
>    in this specification
>    are kept separate, thereby avoiding any premature cleanup of stale routes.
>    For a BGP
>    speaker that supports the BGP Graceful Restart, it MUST NOT send a
>    BoRR for an AFI/SAFI to a neighbor before it sends the EoR for the
>    AFI/SAFI to the neighbor.  A BGP speaker that has received the
>    Graceful Restart Capability from its neighbor, MUST ignore any BoRRs
>    for an AFI/SAFI from the neighbor before the speaker receives the EoR
>    for the given AFI/SAFI from the neighbor.  The BGP speaker SHOULD log
>    an error of the condition for further analysis.
> 
[Dacheng Zhang:] The new paragraph is much better. Thanks. ^_^
> 
> Regards,
> Keyur
> 
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Dacheng
> >