Switch back to RTR version 1 - RFC 8210; the ASPA work still is in flux hindering users #124
Conversation
|
@cjeker what do you think? |
|
What issues do we see? Is the version negotiation failing?
…On Tue, Aug 6, 2024, 07:30 Job Snijders ***@***.***> wrote:
@cjeker <https://github.com/cjeker> what do you think?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#124 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABQTERE3CDKZRAWQO63E2TZQDMYRAVCNFSM6AAAAABMCOZFVOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENZRGQ2DANRZGM>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
@ties In environments where mixes of older and newer versions are used (OpenBGPD, Routinator, StayRTR), we've now received a number of reports about confusion and things not working as people expect them to work. Since the ASPA PDU format is not stable: there still are outstanding issues, the authors appear to be very busy with other non-ASPA things, I think we need to cut our losses and let the users come first. It's easy to change this in the future once ASPA RTR is more fleshed out. Related and ignored: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/F5DJRF9Mkqef1pONEOcSqahVWok/ |
|
It feels like we burned a version number by having a potential format
change after the first release of the support. In a protocol with weak
version negotiation.
Yikes.
…On Tue, Aug 6, 2024, 07:51 Job Snijders ***@***.***> wrote:
@ties <https://github.com/ties> In environments where mixes of older and
newer versions are used (OpenBGPD, Routinator, StayRTR), we've now received
a number of reports about confusion and things not working as people expect
them to work.
Since the ASPA PDU format is not stable: there still are outstanding
issues, the authors appear to be very busy with other non-ASPA things, I
think we need to cut our losses and let the users come first.
It's easy to change this in the future once ASPA RTR is more fleshed out.
Related and ignored:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/F5DJRF9Mkqef1pONEOcSqahVWok/
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#124 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABQTETDECUE3BMWUJK5CQLZQDPHTAVCNFSM6AAAAABMCOZFVOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENZRGQ4DQMRSGQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Yes. Could’ve been avoided if the development cycle was slightly faster than changing spec once every 14 months |
Why Version 0 instead of 1 (RFC8210)? RFC 8210 includes a different 'End of Data' PDU which includes the timing params. |
You make a good point, thanks for the clue bat |
As @cjeker suggested, version 1 brings other benefits aside from BGPsec
Also fix description
|
Looks good to me. |
Switch to RTR version 1 by default (RFC 8210); the ASPA work still is in flux hindering users.
We can revisit this choice in a few months