Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-18

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On January 5, 2022 at 12:12:14 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote:


Sriram:

Hi!


> [KS/AA]: That is interesting. We did already enhance the Role descriptions
> [KS/AA]: as follows to add the import policy verbiage (to the already
> [KS/AA]: existing export policy) in Sec. 2 of v-19 to be uploaded:

Route leaks are created by the (incorrect) advertisement of routes.
Defining egress rules is then in line with the subject of this
document.

OTOH, ingress rules are not.  Also, the ingress behavior is tied in
the draft to the OTC attribute (and not directly to the role).

The result is that the updated text is not consistent with the
behavior already defined elsewhere.  For example, using the Provider
role:


> Old text:
...
> Provider: MAY propagate any available route to a Customer.
>
...
> New text:
...
> Provider: May propagate any available route to a Customer. May
> accept routes originated by the Customer or its Customers; all
> other routes from the Customer must not be accepted.

[Besides loosing the normative language...]

A strict interpretation of the text (routes originated by a Customer
can be accepted) is in contradiction with this text in §4:

   1.  If a route with the OTC Attribute is received from a Customer or
       RS-Client, then it is a route leak and MUST be considered
       ineligible (see Section 1.1).

Note that this text doesn't talk about the origin, but it qualifies
the policy based on the OTC attribute.


All this is to say that the expected ingress behavior, which depends
on the OTC attribute, is already defined elsewhere and there's no need
to change the role definition.

Thanks!

Alvaro.