[i2rs] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-11

Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com> Tue, 01 August 2017 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietf.org
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555DD132B8C; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 01:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.58.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150157551332.9546.17310175858783211646@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 01:18:33 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/U_uuZDqFKxpceLN59uHjxy9eymU>
Subject: [i2rs] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-11
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:18:33 -0000

Reviewer: Henning Rogge
Review result: Has Nits

Submitting on behalf of Henning Rogge:

Hi,

I was asked to do an early review of the i2rs-rib-info-model...

I liked the comprehensive approach describing the RIB, including tunnels,
multi-topology routing (by using multiple RIBs) and routing reactions (like
drop/icmp-error).

I found a few things in the draft that in my opinion need a bit more work...

First it seems that Section 2.3 (Route) is a bit out of sync with the BNF later
in the document, it should at least mention matching the source-IP address of
the IP headers.

Second (if I read the BNF in Section 6 correctly), the match for a route seems
to be one of the list "ip address, MPLS label, MAC address, interface". I think
it should be possible to combine "interface" or "mac address" with an IP
address to restrict the focus of a route, e.g. "match fe80::1 from interface X".

Last, I wonder if multicast routing needs more different types of matchers,
e.g. a match on the TTL of the IP packet to limit the range of a multicast
group.

There is also problem of multicast routing in MANETs (see RFC 6621) which can
use a hash-based duplicate detection to determine if it forwards or drops a
multicast packet. Would this be out of scope for the draft?

Henning Rogge