on versioning, upgrading, new pdus, ... i fear that i have been very
sloppy. for instance, the iana consideration section does not ask for a
registry for Protocol version.
on the naggumite far right we have the problem i stated earlier, the
goal in dropping the session if an unrecognized pdu type is received is
it prevents chaotic pretend upgrading producing a bunch of incorrect
garbage in the router's database which leads to incorrect validity
decisions and thus incorrect routing.
imagine that the unrecognized pdu was signaling "flush all data with
origin AS 42," or "delete all roas for prefix P or longer."
on the be liberal in what you receive far left we have
1. the router does not recognize the new PDU and returns an error.
2. by including the unrecognized PDU in the error message the
cache knows what particular PDU type has caused grief,
such that it can log it and bring it to the operators attention.
---
ok lets go through this:
i was worried about e.g. a "central" deployment model where all your ASBRs
have a session to a central cache. now consider you want to upgrade
the cache with rob's latest sw (which introduces new PDUs).
now all rpki-rtr sessions start to flap, unless you have upgraded
routers to support the new PDUs. - you might argue that you should simply
upgrade the routers first, thereby implying a certain upgrade
order/procedure.
that is going to be a problem:
at some of my larger customers operational responsibilities (routers,
servers)
are strictly seperate and this hidden requirement to upgrade routers first,
will likely be causing support-tickets at vendors of routing and local-cache
software.
i suspect that the core of the disagreement may be a difference in
model.
the bgp heads are used to a unique session whose data may be critical
and can not afford to be lost.
others of us are strongly attached to correctness and are less worried
about dropping sessions because they are not unique in the data sense.
the router is getting the same (well close to) data from other caches,
so the cost of dropping any one session is negligible.
i think that if we can resolve this difference i can then hack the docco
to match.
i suspect that a consequence of the right wing position may be that the
Protocol Version must change if PDU Types are added or changed. this
may imply that, on session start, when the cache receives a PDU from the
router, it has to adjust to the router's version 'capability'. hmmmm.
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
