IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - question 4

Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com> Sat, 09 March 2024 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4880C14F68A for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 08:40:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0gPEDhnTLsq1 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 08:40:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from diehard.n-r-g.com (diehard.n-r-g.com [62.48.3.9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04D7AC14F60E for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 08:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 51546 invoked by uid 1000); 9 Mar 2024 16:40:06 -0000
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2024 17:40:06 +0100
From: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com>
To: Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: sidrops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <ZeyQ5p8POTemUeZ3@diehard.n-r-g.com>
References: <ZexJxZYsgNGth_Q7@snel> <ZexN0VtykWRlmGvq@snel> <ZexXrjeni3FRaZ3-@snel> <ZexbncnxQFnMipa1@snel> <ZeyM+Aev0Q9/MmUE@diehard.n-r-g.com> <CAMFGGcBAKQMdWt5B396enhA=V8vadp64SMO5AL5fX7YnubdJcA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMFGGcBAKQMdWt5B396enhA=V8vadp64SMO5AL5fX7YnubdJcA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/AERzt3khCnBz599gByXZ0AQdrsA>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - question 4
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2024 16:40:09 -0000

On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 05:32:38PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> Hi Claudio,
> 
> Right this should be mandated: an expectation should be set that valid ROAs
> on the same manifest, or multiple VRPs in single ROA end up in a single RTR
> delta. Similarly, VRPs shouldn’t take effect until the End of Data marker
> is been received. Hoping for the best as information drips in is a needless
> complication.
> 
> Section 11 needs work, the race conditions it warns about can be avoided
> with more stringent and precise guidance.

I very much agree with the above and it is the reason why OpenBGPD applies
configs in an atomic fashion.

-- 
:wq Claudio

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status