Skip to main content

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