Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message
RFC 4486
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2016-07-14
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | This document now replaces draft-chen-bgp-cease-subcode instead of None |
|
2015-10-14
|
07 | (System) | Notify list changed from skh@nexthop.com, yakov@juniper.net to yakov@juniper.net |
|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Mark Townsley |
|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Alex Zinin |
|
2006-05-03
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-05-03
|
07 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4486' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-04-28
|
07 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2006-04-25
|
07 | Bill Fenner | In Authors' 48 hours: From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: AUTH48 [AH]: RFC 4486 <draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-07.txt> NOW AVAILABLE Date: Tue, Apr 25 … In Authors' 48 hours: From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: AUTH48 [AH]: RFC 4486 <draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-07.txt> NOW AVAILABLE Date: Tue, Apr 25 14:16:42 To: enkechen@cisco.com, vgi@opentransit.net Cc: idr-ads@tools.ietf.org, idr-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org |
|
2006-02-24
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-02-23
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2006-02-23
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2006-02-23
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2006-02-17
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-02-16 |
|
2006-02-16
|
07 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Follow-up Comments after clarification with Bill Fenner: The registry will go in bgp-parameters, it creates a new subregistry under "BGP Error Subcodes", "Cease subcodes:" … IANA Follow-up Comments after clarification with Bill Fenner: The registry will go in bgp-parameters, it creates a new subregistry under "BGP Error Subcodes", "Cease subcodes:" just like the existing "Message Header Error subcodes:" and friends. |
|
2006-02-16
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Bill Fenner |
|
2006-02-16
|
07 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2006-02-15
|
07 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alex Zinin has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Alex Zinin |
|
2006-02-15
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Mark Townsley |
|
2006-02-15
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] There is no Category field in the header of the document ------------------------------- Document: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-05.txt From: Lakshminath Dondeti Date: 13 april 2005 +++++++++++++++++ Review … [Ballot comment] There is no Category field in the header of the document ------------------------------- Document: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-05.txt From: Lakshminath Dondeti Date: 13 april 2005 +++++++++++++++++ Review of 'Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message ' <draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard IETF LC ends 2005-04-08. 1. Section 1 uses the old RFC2026 template and MUST be updated. 2. Editorial: replace co-relating with correlating 3. Section 5: In the text corresponding to Subcode 8, please replace Resource with Resources 4. There is only one figure, but I still suggest numbering it and putting a label on it. Also, please make sure that the Figure does not span across two pages. 5. Replace "If a BGP speaker runs out of resource" with "If a BGP speaker runs out of resources" 6. There is no IPR statement. 7. There is also no indication of "track". I presume the I-D is in standards track, and is in the proposed standard stage. In summary, except for the templates etc., I have only minor editorial suggestions for improvement. ++++++++++++++ |
|
2006-02-02
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-02-16 by Bill Fenner |
|
2006-02-02
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Bill Fenner |
|
2006-01-25
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2006-01-25
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-07.txt |
|
2006-01-12
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-08-20
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Subject: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 16:35:07 -0400 To: zinin@psg.com,townsley@cisco.com Alex, Mark, You both have about the same DISCUSS … Subject: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 16:35:07 -0400 To: zinin@psg.com,townsley@cisco.com Alex, Mark, You both have about the same DISCUSS on draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode. To address Mark's #2 and #4, and Alex's, what about changing the paragraph in question to It is RECOMMENDED that a BGP speaker behave as though the DampPeerOscillations attribute was true for this peer when re-trying a BGP connection after the speaker receives a Cease NOTIFICATION message with subcode of "Administrative Shutdown", or "Peer De-configured", or "Connection Rejected", or "Out of Resources". An implementation SHOULD impose an upper bound on the number of consecutive automatic retries. Once this bound is reached, the implementation would stop re-trying any BGP connections until some administrative intervention, i.e., set the AllowAutomaticStart attribute to FALSE. To address Mark's #3: I think that DampPeerOscillations in the main spec covers the "always perform some sort of backoff" - if you always want to perform some sort of backoff, then set this flag; the listed cases are such exceptions that it's clear that even if the flag isn't set it should be used. I dunno how to address Mark's #1; a wording change to the intro? Thanks, Bill |
|
2005-06-27
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2005-06-27
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-06.txt |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Amy Vezza |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Note field has been cleared by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Sorry for the gibberish in the log. I was using the test I-D tracker URL, and didn't realize that the test I-D tracker was pointed … Sorry for the gibberish in the log. I was using the test I-D tracker URL, and didn't realize that the test I-D tracker was pointed to the real database! |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: The IANA Considerations section does not clearly state what the IANA needs to do. A revision of this section is needed. |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot discuss] > It is RECOMMENDED that a BGP speaker implement a backoff mechanism in > re-trying a BGP connection after the speaker … [Ballot discuss] > It is RECOMMENDED that a BGP speaker implement a backoff mechanism in > re-trying a BGP connection after the speaker receives a Cease > NOTIFICATION message with subcode of "Administrative Shutdown", or > "Peer Unconfigured", or "Connection Rejected", or "Out of Resource". > An implementation MAY impose an upper bound on the number of > consecutive automatic retries. Once this bound is reached, the > implementation would stop re-trying any BGP connections until some > administrative intervention. The text above suggests that the implementation changes part of the behavior that the main spec has an FSM for. This doc should specify how that FSM is changed. |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
|
2005-04-25
|
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
|
2005-04-24
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot discuss] I have a few issues with this paragraph that I'd like to discuss: > It is RECOMMENDED that a BGP speaker implement … [Ballot discuss] I have a few issues with this paragraph that I'd like to discuss: > It is RECOMMENDED that a BGP speaker implement a backoff mechanism in > re-trying a BGP connection after the speaker receives a Cease > NOTIFICATION message with subcode of "Administrative Shutdown", or > "Peer Unconfigured", or "Connection Rejected", or "Out of Resource". > An implementation MAY impose an upper bound on the number of > consecutive automatic retries. Once this bound is reached, the > implementation would stop re-trying any BGP connections until some > administrative intervention. 1. The Introduction of this document implies that this draft is nothing more than a set of subcodes sent with a BGP NOTIFICATION message to help in troubleshooting. The above paragraph seems to go a bit beyond this, suggesting a mechanism for how to reconnect after receiving certain types of subcodes. Further, since the retry mechanism is only to apply when certain subcodes are received, the subcodes themselves have now become more than simply values to be reported for troubleshooting, but part of a protocol interaction between peers. Is this truly intended? 2. What kind of backoff should be implemented? Exponential? Is there a reasonable start or max value for the re-try delay? Some simple guidance here might help varying interpretations of this. 3. Should the backoff re-try only apply after "Administrative Shutdown", "Peer Unconfigured", "Connection Rejected", or "Out of Resource"? What about, say, "Other Configuration Change," "Maximum Number of Prefixes Reached" or some future value that is not defined in this spec? In general, why wouldn't one always perform some sort of backoff when faced with repeated retries to a peer? 4. When is it a bad idea for an implementation to provide some manner of (presumably configurable) upper bound on retries? Perhaps the upper bound should be at least be a SHOULD here rather than a simple MAY. |
|
2005-04-24
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-04-24
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-04-23
|
07 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
|
2005-04-23
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation from IESG Evaluation by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-04-23
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Note]: 'Testing multi-line notes. This note has multiple lines. We''ve seen multi-line notes get corrupted on the first change after they''re entered - so this … [Note]: 'Testing multi-line notes. This note has multiple lines. We''ve seen multi-line notes get corrupted on the first change after they''re entered - so this should [blank line above] look ok after entering it, but then I''ll change something else and we''ll see. Oh! The multi-line note gets displayed right when it gets entered into the comment log, but gets corrupted immediately - perhaps in display - and so gets "changed" the next time there''s any update.' added by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-04-23
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Note]: 'Testing multi-line notes. This note has multiple lines. We''ve seen multi-line notes get corrupted on the first change after they''re entered - so this … [Note]: 'Testing multi-line notes. This note has multiple lines. We''ve seen multi-line notes get corrupted on the first change after they''re entered - so this should [blank line above] look ok after entering it, but then I''ll change something else and we''ll see.<br><br>Oh! The multi-line note gets displayed right when it gets entered into the comment log, but gets corrupted immediately - perhaps in display - and so gets "changed" the next time there''s any update.<br><br>' added by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-04-23
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Note]: 'Testing multi-line notes.<br><br>This note has multiple lines. We''ve seen multi-line notes get corrupted on the first change after they''re entered - so this should<br><br>[blank … [Note]: 'Testing multi-line notes.<br><br>This note has multiple lines. We''ve seen multi-line notes get corrupted on the first change after they''re entered - so this should<br><br>[blank line above] look ok after entering it, but then I''ll change something else and we''ll see.<br>' added by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-04-21
|
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
|
2005-04-21
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] Document: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-05.txt From: Lakshminath Dondeti Date: 13 april 2005 +++++++++++++++++ Review of 'Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message ' <draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-05.txt> … [Ballot comment] Document: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-05.txt From: Lakshminath Dondeti Date: 13 april 2005 +++++++++++++++++ Review of 'Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message ' <draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard IETF LC ends 2005-04-08. 1. Section 1 uses the old RFC2026 template and MUST be updated. 2. Editorial: replace co-relating with correlating 3. Section 5: In the text corresponding to Subcode 8, please replace Resource with Resources 4. There is only one figure, but I still suggest numbering it and putting a label on it. Also, please make sure that the Figure does not span across two pages. 5. Replace "If a BGP speaker runs out of resource" with "If a BGP speaker runs out of resources" 6. There is no IPR statement. 7. There is also no indication of "track". I presume the I-D is in standards track, and is in the proposed standard stage. In summary, except for the templates etc., I have only minor editorial suggestions for improvement. ++++++++++++++ |
|
2005-04-21
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
|
2005-04-20
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
|
2005-04-20
|
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Scott Hollenbeck has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Scott Hollenbeck |
|
2005-04-20
|
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot comment] References should be split normative/informative. |
|
2005-04-20
|
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
|
2005-04-19
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bill Fenner |
|
2005-04-19
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Ballot has been issued by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-04-19
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2005-04-19
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-04-19
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-04-25 by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-04-08
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
|
2005-03-25
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2005-03-25
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2005-03-24
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Last Call was requested by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-03-24
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-03-24
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2005-03-24
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2005-03-24
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2005-02-24
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Bill Fenner |
|
2004-04-27
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Yakov says the version number skew was simply a typo; -04 was the document that the WG Last Call was done on and -05 is … Yakov says the version number skew was simply a typo; -04 was the document that the WG Last Call was done on and -05 is the version that fixes the comments from WG Last Call. |
|
2004-04-15
|
07 | Barbara Fuller | The request to publish specified version 04. However, the latest draft in the I-D Tracker is version 05. |
|
2004-04-15
|
07 | Barbara Fuller | Draft Added by Barbara Fuller |
|
2004-03-25
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-05.txt |
|
2003-09-16
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-04.txt |
|
2003-08-05
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-03.txt |
|
2002-11-25
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-02.txt |
|
2002-05-07
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-01.txt |
|
2001-10-18
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-00.txt |