[Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - question 1
Job Snijders <job@fastly.com> Sat, 09 March 2024 11:36 UTC
Return-Path: <job@fastly.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 D08E5C151092 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 03:36:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.104
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastly.com
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 uCvHnwwtnfzK for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 03:36:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E231C14CE44 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 03:36:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-567bac94719so1911501a12.0 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 03:36:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastly.com; s=google; t=1709984201; x=1710589001; darn=ietf.org; h=content-disposition:mime-version:message-id:subject:to:from:date :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=szQxsCt7J3hE3lyNdzwnCCUT0lidKhFeaTUVi2nIaQY=; b=GQJKjGpxsGhwYWn0r6RkrQqD8lt4Xc2PpgPWgjbPKuyNfl5LForIu5AQsp7A4D5spj PQHfWTZDWtB9gqWXFCH9WUCfMKI9qoi9yJKMYE6KT8VY6aZ8tCP0FLYjhgaYDuZ1SV0y dIu2Kjri2uOjpKXgQQDen8c/ie/MEYqsqceuo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709984201; x=1710589001; h=content-disposition:mime-version:message-id:subject:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=szQxsCt7J3hE3lyNdzwnCCUT0lidKhFeaTUVi2nIaQY=; b=ayaufCGyO/qBGqUfAh4MFZbvUgEEaZ6/zC07r6z3QEZ1hD0ImZ+MmfeU8Tv1XQGcdp Szzwpzfx7/I8E2NpibYVgvVlkZl+LUItv0MNZMBFcK2cDWQ7mcN+QzpHYL5yjaOXPYsL jXxX/Sxm88uLpzsmle63a7yOh4HMcz8KOAt7F4o7uSd7SVQVmLYq/gEbmONFLp7mGBOx TVdvmB4Fm0EYOmit6HtNC2TThK/cNB7/azuKWQd+HPmKFo3FmSsSdwqq1LM6f2IwA5Ph ZjNaDCuB1sVDmcsJmabYGghdb9Mq6MJNRtFWYYjTm2WALnNVC0s+8vnKArmeaIp5biH/ ldHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyBf5EJYN6rzrlYTjng3fFmM8jJqKV1qmCpBH/HA0Lob1xX1fap 8goED6sqv7G7eXpRKOrlRNckYNFCDpIcIaUlg+TCiaYMKOICLhMLXKnwqonw8gekn8gQ+lRnJrv hj9TN9E9pZVjLZ93KLvbsGl6qUic9+CaRjQrruEw34GX22mRO+i3NnRzQiNbIIUSmkL2RYmhEMR iAXlVQKytiAFjVKwepB0zSlXq3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGl2wMdHrPJE+Ni1OmrMDt6zs5Dqv9y5oFjhQS3OvCx84hzxFNHot7RJKVRtlXk1dIyYdEXYw==
X-Received: by 2002:a50:934a:0:b0:567:ef00:bdbe with SMTP id n10-20020a50934a000000b00567ef00bdbemr1220498eda.33.1709984199696; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 03:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from snel ([2a10:3781:276:3:16f6:d8ff:fe47:2eb7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c89-20020a509fe2000000b0056691924615sm831454edf.2.2024.03.09.03.36.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 09 Mar 2024 03:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2024 12:36:37 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>
To: sidrops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <ZexJxZYsgNGth_Q7@snel>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/oGlxE5Yi_46oaqSsUol_arFMSSc>
Subject: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - question 1
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 11:36:47 -0000
Dear all,
I have some questions about rfc8210bis
Question #1
===========
In Section 8.2:
Cache Router
~ ~
| -------- Notify ----------> | (optional)
| |
| <----- Serial Query ------- | R requests data
| |
| ----- Cache Response -----> | C confirms request
| ------- Payload PDU ------> | C sends zero or more
| ------- Payload PDU ------> | IPv4 Prefix, IPv6 Prefix,
| ------- Payload PDU ------> | ASPA. or Router Key PDUs
| ------- End of Data ------> | C sends End of Data
| | and sends new serial
and section 5.6 "IPv4 Prefix" states
"""
The cache server MUST ensure that it has told the router client to have one
and only one IPvX PDU for a unique {Prefix, Len, Max-Len, ASN} at any one
point in time. Should the router client receive an IPvX PDU with a
{Prefix, Len, Max-Len, ASN} identical to one it already has active, it
SHOULD raise a Duplicate Announcement Received error.
"""
Imagine the cache emits the following sequence of PDUs:
Cache Router
~ ~
<-- Serial Query
Cache response -->
Announce 2001:db8::/32 Origin 65535 -->
Withdraw 2001:db8::/32 Origin 65535 -->
Announce 2001:db8::/32 Origin 65535 -->
End of Data w/ new serial -->
A VRP for 2001:db8::/32 is announced, withdrawn, and announced again.
Should the above sequence of PDUs trigger the 'Duplicate Announcement
Received' error?
I'd take "only and only at any one point in time" where 'point in time'
is the window between the last serial and the next serial? To what
extend can routers expect caches to provide a consistent view within a
single Cache Response?
Kind regards,
Job
- [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - question 1 Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Claudio Jeker
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Claudio Jeker
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Randy Bush
- [Sidrops] Re: rfc8210bis further review - questio… Randy Bush
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Borchert, Oliver (Fed)
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Claudio Jeker
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Claudio Jeker
- [Sidrops] Re: rfc8210bis further review - questio… Job Snijders
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Job Snijders
- [Sidrops] Re: rfc8210bis further review - questio… Randy Bush
- Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - questio… Borchert, Oliver (Fed)