Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11

From: Michael H Lambert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:10:55 -0400

This may have been discussed before and I just couldn't find it in the archives, and it may be too late in the process to ask the question, but should RFC 7606 (Revised Error Handling for BGP) apply to peering sessions with route server clients?  It does run counter to attribute transparency, but it can help insure that the "right" session is reset and that known (or knowable) bad announcements are properly propagated.

Michael

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:54:24 +0100

Michael H Lambert wrote:
> This may have been discussed before and I just couldn't find it in
> the archives, and it may be too late in the process to ask the
> question, but should RFC 7606 (Revised Error Handling for BGP) apply
> to peering sessions with route server clients?  It does run counter
> to attribute transparency, but it can help insure that the "right"
> session is reset and that known (or knowable) bad announcements are
> properly propagated.

My reading is that the draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server is ok on this.
 The relevant sections in RFC7606 are 7.2 to 7.4, inclusive.  7.3 and
7.4 only make line-protocol statements on what should be considered
malformed.

Section 7.2 states:

>    [RFC4271] also says that an implementation optionally "MAY check
>    whether the leftmost ... AS in the AS_PATH attribute is equal to the
>    autonomous system number of the peer that sent the message". 

I.e. it makes no statement one way or another on what should be done
where the leftmost as != peeras.  draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server
doesn't contradict this.

Nick