> On Nov 19, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jeff, > > > Part of the motivation I had for suggesting the use of an existing sub-code > > is we have *not* changed the semantics in a machine-readable format. > > It's still "administrative shutdown". Today, you'd have zero extra > > information > > what it's about. > > My interpretation of 4271 does not prohibit one to send more then one cease > notification message. > > One would be subcode 2 as today .. the other would be subcode 9 INFO.
What would the distinction between admin shutdown (clear) vs. info-read the friendly message be? > > > The shutdown draft requires no changes for any useful backward > > compatibility. > > If you add length as proposed by Job it does. 4271, section 6.4. I'm being a bit of a pain in my interpretation here but simply: - You still have a valid code and sub-code. (The admin shutdown subcode is already not in 4271 and thus not in compliance with 4271-only implementation.) - If you don't understand the data, you can't report it back. - You're instructed to "bring this to the attention of the administration of the peer". This is one of the motivators already for the hexdump many implementations use. I derive my justification from the same used when RFC 4486 was discussed. :-) > > > But in order to signal such other information, the routers in question > > would need to support Advisory. > > Advisory is also not structured. Partially my point. "SMS over BGP" is how someone commented on this previously. -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
