Re: [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-11.txt

Job Snijders <> Fri, 22 September 2023 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F1AC16950D for <>; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.104
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14cidWGdzOFZ for <>; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C22B3C165767 for <>; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5043120ffbcso2713232e87.2 for <>; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; t=1695391637; x=1695996437;; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Sg0ZDfEQJv+whTYAWc2Ks539wn599uhMwHZCfQEgKFQ=; b=HJY4fVH9ieIHvS50ossR5uqqiwtMYBU7t5R3AYWcgZLZk17TYzfbkS5uyPi2bWZ15v P3/+ecFYXuXv1YXe+D3OFQdlwS/RuYj9o0GVuyABReH1hg5ErZODhFopudNGEkj7sE6D 8EjkIUPYWt9ybVf5rFgj29lgb9xiQ/ClbPuNM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1695391637; x=1695996437; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Sg0ZDfEQJv+whTYAWc2Ks539wn599uhMwHZCfQEgKFQ=; b=uPzqIA5886Dxcc2Pa3kKWBWytEUaWNtFhmmBHCpCWKWNHltdEYf4+O0QI22XH+vI5B M0XdC39pAwLawqiAaP+e+F0rV1LxBE4xWTmjYVsSqoZIpnAOZPrZNi8xdfk9e1ZoSn4S XCxFEieFhidbs/F9A/qyPmwBkNK4/ymB7r7k8Sthc2kdYl3FoRExy2XFuUdBEciHGQyK OrEaSsuOT3JBSseIG1RUY1NRe5SjQC0xCWjBcd8HC8EeiDnH0sKaf0IK8S4V5LHpyaNV 6zvnXTaRCs/dyVsJ2KHTRVMlsnzzNS1r2NruTgNSq0uQb7td7sbyITi2XhaZIZYi+WgD cibg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywr2qcbk6kyoYLflmhDG5idoRVqR7904jAowrmnqQHJq01n6+EF Vz8syPqD455DDnUyYFK8G8jTjQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH+jd4WtFP0xZxGYvRonRDxCMGPA0vfqa07AWoFnoGr7iGDN5YRO0fAFKW8Juu/JGYj+jfkSA==
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5e71:0:b0:4fb:90c6:c31a with SMTP id a17-20020ac25e71000000b004fb90c6c31amr7163621lfr.14.1695391637528; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snel ([2a10:3781:276:3:16f6:d8ff:fe47:2eb7]) by with ESMTPSA id f1-20020a17090624c100b009ae3e6c342asm2745888ejb.111.2023. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 16:07:15 +0200
From: Job Snijders <>
To: Claudio Jeker <>
Message-ID: <ZQ2fk3ZDqW3gLZYI@snel>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-11.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 14:07:23 -0000

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 03:45:16PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> But my main issue is with:
>                                                 Currently, the two low
>    order bits MUST always be set, i.e. 1, and the rest unset, i.e. 0.
>    This allows the router to prepare for less change should the AFIs be
>    separated in a future version.
> How should a router RTR implementation prepare for something that will
> probably never happen?

It can't, since routers aren't preparing for anything. I think that
sentence about preparation for separation in a future version is
contentious and should just be removed.

> Last but not least I like the clarification in Section 13.

I'll take some credit for that clarification :-)

Kind regards,