On 4/4/17, 12:44 PM, "Matthew Lepinski" <[email protected]> wrote:
Matt: Hi! > The proposed changes seem reasonable, but I want to make sure that I > understand the path forward clearly. > > My understanding is that if we were to reach a future where > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages is widely deployed, then the BGP > speaker's maximum message size will just be larger (than it is today) > and as a result we avoid reaching the point where Section 9.2 (of > 4271) guidance is needed. > > Is my understanding correct? Not exactly. The text in 9.2/rfc4271 is generic, it doesn’t apply to a specific message size; the maximum size is defined elsewhere. The current text of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages changes the size of the messages in Section 4 (of rfc4271), which is the same place where 9.2 points to. IOW, the text in 9.2 would not change and still be applicable, the limit would just be reached later. > (I want to make sure that future > implementers will find our text clear and we won't need to revise this > spec to add clarity if extended messages ends up in widespread use.) To me, the main purpose of changing the BGPsec spec is to depend on whatever BGP does, and not on a future extension that may or may not be in the form it is today. However, if we keep the reference to the known standard (rfc4271), then we should not have to update this document because we would just inherit whatever BGP does. Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
