[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Idr] RFC-compliant use of Extended Length for new BGP attributes
Hi Marcelo,
RFC4271 obsoletes RFC1771. In my view as the RFC4271 does not mention
the "Extended Length" restriction as defined below in RFC1771, the
restriction no longer applies to RFC4271.
"Extended Length may be used only if the length of the attribute value
is greater than 255 octets."
I agree clarification on the same would have been good though.
Thanks,
Vishwas
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Marcelo Schmidt <mschmidt at equinix.com> wrote:
> I am interested in input from the list on loose behavior we've seen
> from various BGP specs. The specific example in question is a case we
> are seeing in the wild where a NEW_AS_PATH attribute has 8 data bytes,
> but sets the Extended Length bit and uses a 2-byte length field. RFC
> 1771 explicitly states "Extended Length may be used only if the length
> of the attribute value is greater than 255 octets." However, the
> superceding RFC 4271 does not have this explicit language, therefore
> would imply that either of the following cases would technically be
> compliant:
>
> A. Ext-Len is set (1), 2-byte length field is used, regardless of
> length of attribute
>
> B. Ext-Len is clear (0), 1-byte length field is uses,
> and attribute is <= 255 bytes
>
> Furthermore, I've seen loose language, such as
> draft-kumaki-pce-bgp-disco-attribute-00.txt that seems to imply to
> always set Ext-Len bit regardless.
>
> Specifically, is anyone aware of any new BGP extensions that
> would REQUIRE Ext-Len to be set, even if attribute is <= 255 bytes?
> Our thought is that if we receive a case A above with length <= 255
> bytes, we are free to propogate to downstream neighbors as a case B
> (generically, for any attribute in BGP)."
>
> --
> -m
>
> ====================================================================
> Key fingerprint = 8E48 6CD0 6D2B 538E 264B D1D0 21E2 E7EE A40F 2A0B
> gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 0xA40F2A0B
> ====================================================================
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr