Alvaro, Thanks a lot. That makes perfect sense.
I support this change. - Matt Lepinski On Apr 4, 2017 1:18 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
