Re: [Sidrops] Which 8210-bis error code should be used?

gengnan <gengnan@huawei.com> Thu, 08 June 2023 06:54 UTC

Return-Path: <gengnan@huawei.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 11FC8C151B23 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 23:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Y-mP7DX2bZmH for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 23:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA7EFC14CEED for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 23:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4QcFHL1Qfwz6DBY8 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 14:51:26 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm500006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.236) by lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.23; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 07:53:44 +0100
Received: from kwepemm600009.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.164) by dggpemm500006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.236) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.23; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 14:53:42 +0800
Received: from kwepemm600009.china.huawei.com ([7.193.23.164]) by kwepemm600009.china.huawei.com ([7.193.23.164]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.023; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 14:53:42 +0800
From: gengnan <gengnan@huawei.com>
To: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Sidrops] Which 8210-bis error code should be used?
Thread-Index: AQHZlLH7ZQtBuaHo/0itZzZDoHuOfq9+y1QAgAAFx4CAAAuJAIABc7Uw
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 06:53:41 +0000
Message-ID: <7462895378ab4903b692264e67700ee5@huawei.com>
References: <F338C878-E41A-4DB7-A4C6-1CEE0A6F6502@verisign.com> <003401d9993d$6b03db90$410b92b0$@cernet.edu.cn> <C1A9142F-F938-42F2-970E-3C2B85044019@nlnetlabs.nl> <ZICJjsmMcuQr55Sn@diehard.n-r-g.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZICJjsmMcuQr55Sn@diehard.n-r-g.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.40.101]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/Yyf6ovop-YWLf_OgoVbtXKONuyI>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Which 8210-bis error code should be used?
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: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 06:54:03 -0000

Hi,

(Want to confirm another 8210bis error code usage in this thread..)

The two descriptions in the 8210bis draft below look like inconsistent. (Through reading the codes) Openbgpd seems to follow the first description, i.e., "replacing". 
If "replacing" is the correct understanding, why not IPvX PDU and Router Key PDU take the "replacing" action?  

Description 1: 
"
Receipt of an ASPA PDU announcement (announce/withdraw flag == 1) when the router already has an ASPA PDU with the same Customer Autonomous System Number and the same Address Family (see AFI Flags field), replaces the previous one.
"
Description 2: 
"
Duplicate Announcement Received (fatal):
The received PDU has Flag=1, but a matching record ({Prefix, Len, Max-Len, ASN} tuple for an IPvX PDU or {SKI, ASN, Subject Public Key} tuple for a Router Key PDU), or Customer Autonomous System for an ASPA PDU is already active in the router.
"


Best,
Nan