Hello,
I would propose a draft wording change among the lines of what is here. I have not defined a name for the "extra capability buffer size", it may be advisable. So the wording is mostly to clarify the intend and not intended verbatim. Thomas -- Before The BGP Extended Message Capability is a new BGP Capability [RFC5492] defined with Capability code 6 and Capability length 0. After The BGP Extended Message Capability is a new BGP Capability [RFC5492] defined with Capability code 6 and Capability length 2. The capability value will be called "capability extra length" (encoded as 2 octets). The value of the "capability extra length" MUST be added to the OPEN "Optional Parameters Length", and the "Optional Parameters" buffer extended accordingly. For backward compatibility with speakers not aware of this capability, the data processed when only reading "Optional Parameters Length" of "Optional Parameters" MUST provide a valid capability boundary. Further drafts and RFC MUST explicitly indicate if any defined capability must be stored within the non-extended Optional Parameters buffer or SHALL be added within the extended size. Before An implementation that advertises support for BGP Extended Messages MUST be capable of receiving an UPDATE message with a length up to and including 65535 octets. After An implementation that advertises support for BGP Extended Messages MUST be capable of receiving messages with a length up to and including 65535 octets, however the OPEN message length MUST still be no greater than 4096.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
