Skip to content

Add maxReceivedBgpRoutePrefixesV6 to L3BaseGuidance schema #55

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
bpescato-amazon wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add maxReceivedBgpRoutePrefixesV6 to L3BaseGuidance schema #55

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
21 changes: 20 additions & 1 deletion connection-coordinator/schemas/connection.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -192,13 +192,32 @@ L3BaseGuidance:
type: array
maxReceivedBgpRoutePrefixes:
description: |-
Maximum number of BGP route prefixes accepted by the connection.
Required. Maximum number of IPv4 BGP route prefixes accepted by the
connection.

While not negotiated between providers, providers must be aware that if
more BGP route prefixes are announced, protocol behavior will be
undefined.
format: int32
type: integer
maxReceivedBgpRoutePrefixesIpv6:
description: |-
Optional. Maximum number of IPv6 BGP route prefixes accepted by the
connection.

While not negotiated between providers, providers must be aware that if
more BGP route prefixes are announced, protocol behavior will be
undefined.

If this field is omitted, the value of maxReceivedBgpRoutePrefixes is
also used as the IPv6 value.
format: int32
type: integer
required:

@dkarwowski dkarwowski Jun 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is technically a breaking change in the generated libraries (because it gets rid of the "Has*" style functions, at least in the Go generator).

I'm also wondering if there's a value to required here since this is a response. There's not much the client can do if the server omits it, and logically it maintains the same behavior of no value -> 0 / empty list.

@bpescato-amazon bpescato-amazon Jun 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, not following exactly which part is beraking. Is it the new "required" portion?

@dkarwowski dkarwowski Jun 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah it's the 'required' section that's flagging for me. I'm mostly interested in how we want to describe semantics if a server omits a required field in a response body in this case?

- asnRanges
- vlanRanges
- mtuRanges
- maxReceivedBgpRoutePrefixes
type: object

ASNRange:
Expand Down