Re: [Sidrops] 8210bis

Martin Hoffmann <> Sat, 08 February 2020 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DE21200B1 for <>; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 01:37:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ABbyG56d1pi3 for <>; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 01:37:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:0:0:10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6C2212003E for <>; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 01:37:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6F221335A; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 10:37:10 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results:; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
Authentication-Results:; spf=none
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 10:37:10 +0100
From: Martin Hoffmann <>
To: Randy Bush <>
Cc: SIDR Operations WG <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Organization: Open Netlabs
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] 8210bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 08 Feb 2020 09:37:15 -0000

Randy Bush wrote:
> while we're doing the ASPA PDU hack, do any implementors of 6810/8210
> have comments based on experience implementing 6810/8210?

The one thing that tripped me up when implementing RTR was that the
content of the End-of-data PDU had changed between versions 0 and 1 and
this isn’t properly mentioned in 8210 (there’s a vague note in section
1.2 that one can really only interpret correctly in hindsight). Since
the old format isn’t mentioned but in practice you will have to
implement version 0, you need to read and implement an obsoleted RFC
which seems a bit wrong to me.

It would be good if 8210bis would at least stick a big warning at its
equivalent to section 5.8 or, better yet, show the format for version
0 as well.

The other thing that is a bit iffy when implementing is that for the
Router Key PDU the flags field is moved from the payload into to the
header repurposing part of what is the session ID when present. Maybe
for the ASPA PDU you could keep it in the payload?

Kind regards,