Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:36:50 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Extended Message support for BGP
        Authors         : Keyur Patel
                          Dave Ward
                          Randy Bush
	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2015-07-06

Abstract:
   The BGP specification mandates a maximum BGP message size of 4096
   octets.  As BGP is extended to support newer AFI/SAFIs, there is a
   need to extend the maximum message size beyond 4096 octets.  This
   document updates [RFC4271] by providing an extension to BGP to extend
   its current message size from 4096 octets to 65535 octets.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 05:43:19 +0900

no change, just a refresh

---

From: heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:01:59 +0000

> no change, just a refresh

why has this not yet graduated to rfc?

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:04:41 -0400

Dave:

It is waiting for 2 implementations.  If you know of the 2 implementations,
I will start the process.

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of heasley
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: idr wg list
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10.txt

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:22:28 -0400

> I will start the process.

Juniper has one in the queue for release scheduled this year.

If there's a second implementation we could probably do the necessary
interop work once we're into the appropriate bit of the QA cycle.

-- Jeff

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:26:49 -0700

> Juniper has one in the queue for release scheduled this year.

cool beans, as heas would say

> interop work once we're into the appropriate bit of the QA cycle.

if another iron vendor is <insert snark>, we can find a quagga or bird
to bounce with you.  we need it for bgpsec testing anyway.

randy

---

From: "Thomas Mangin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:46:39 +0100

I will happily add support in ExaBGP as soon as the capability number is 
assigned.

Thomas

http://exa.net.uk/about/contact-us

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:11:38 -0400

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 08:46:39PM +0100, Thomas Mangin wrote:
> I will happily add support in ExaBGP as soon as the capability
> number is assigned.

And here's where I must retract my comment as having read too many documents
in too short an order.

Juniper will have an implementation of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param, not the
extended message type.  (Although we have some old prototype code for the
extended message type kicking around...)

-- Jeff

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:12:33 -0700

> I just implemented the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages to BIRD.
> Currently it is a private patch, when the capability number will be
> assigned, it could be a part of the next official release.

oh idr chairs, this is the second request for the capability.  iff we
want this to progress, we either need to talk to the iana or agree on
some disgusting temp hack.  your call, it's process.

randy

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 22:14:51 +0000

It seems that there is enough interest and implementation traction to
request early IANA allocation for the capability (as described in RFC 7120
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7120.txt).
Thanks,
Acee  

On 7/12/15, 4:12 PM, "Idr on behalf of Randy Bush" <[email-masked]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 15:18:34 -0700

in private email, jgs pointed out there is an fcfs range for cap codes.
who's gonna be first?  :)

randy

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:46:26 -0400

Randy: 

My apologies for missing the early capability request.  I will circle with
Alvaro Sunday at IETF to see if I can get this done quickly.

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 4:13 PM
To: Ondrej Zajicek
Cc: idr wg list
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10.txt

> assigned, it could be a part of the next official release.

oh idr chairs, this is the second request for the capability.  iff we want
this to progress, we either need to talk to the iana or agree on some
disgusting temp hack.  your call, it's process.

randy

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:52:33 -0400

Acee, Randy and Ondrej: 

I agree there is enough interest for an early allocation.   I will kick this
off this week. 

The process is that I write a shepherd's report (will do by Saturday pm),
and then we talk to the responsible AD about approving this work.   I think
I can do my part by Sunday (7/19).   And with everyone in the same place,
maybe it can go really fast. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 6:15 PM
To: Randy Bush; Ondrej Zajicek
Cc: idr wg list
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10.txt

On 7/12/15, 4:12 PM, "Idr on behalf of Randy Bush" <[email-masked] on

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:40:40 -0700

> Alvaro Sunday at IETF to see if I can get this done quickly.

sue:

as jgs pointed out, capabilities have a fcfs temp allocation method.

but if you want to go through the pain of getting an assignment, don't
let me stop you.

randy

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:17:06 -0400

Randy:

Do you want a standard's early allocation or a FCFS allocation?  It is your
choice.  The pain is not that bad since the Routing AD can approve it now. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 9:41 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'idr wg list'
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10.txt

> My apologies for missing the early capability request.  I will circle 
> with Alvaro Sunday at IETF to see if I can get this done quickly.

sue:

but if you want to go through the pain of getting an assignment, don't let
me stop you.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:22:27 -0700

sue

> choice.  The pain is not that bad since the Routing AD can approve it now. 

i personally do not care.  the implementors and early deployers may so
they do not get a compatibility issue should this become an rfc.

randy

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:52:48 +0000

Hi Randy, Sue, 
If all one wants to do is experimentation for interoperability, then FCFS
is fine. However, if the implementation is to be supported, it is a real
pain for the code point to change. I’d say that early allocation is always
a good idea for drafts that the WG expects to be submitted to the IESG for
publication within the 1 year IANA allocation period.
Thanks,
Acee

On 7/13/15, 10:22 PM, "Idr on behalf of Randy Bush" <[email-masked]

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:58:53 -0400

Acee: 

I will go for the early adoption request. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 5:53 AM
To: Randy Bush; Susan Hares
Cc: 'idr wg list'
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10.txt

Hi Randy, Sue,
If all one wants to do is experimentation for interoperability, then FCFS is fine. However, if the implementation is to be supported, it is a real pain for the code point to change. I’d say that early allocation is always a good idea for drafts that the WG expects to be submitted to the IESG for publication within the 1 year IANA allocation period.
Thanks,
Acee

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:02:26 +0000

Thanks Sue - we may have a prototype for testing as well.
Acee 

On 7/15/15, 5:58 PM, "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>pain for the code point to change. I’d say that early allocation is
>always a good idea for drafts that the WG expects to be submitted to the
>IESG for publication within the 1 year IANA allocation period.
>Thanks,
>Acee
>
>