Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22

bruno.decraene@orange.com Mon, 31 May 2021 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8874C3A18EA; Mon, 31 May 2021 07:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yNoyAkhdMM5z; Mon, 31 May 2021 07:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B46F3A1914; Mon, 31 May 2021 07:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfedar27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4Fty6D1fJyz2yrV; Mon, 31 May 2021 16:17:08 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1622470628; bh=tIImKHOX/IkczkIy8SwGii2wEF7KSuURb2gKKAyq1go=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=sso935lH0PegJvJPQ2E57dkexi0QY3qx65PCmqmsYWdLmadhi9wOkAqc+ovV3srBi twkvf/qt9PXXcVSi9APlAkt8iqgH8WgKKVD21OBe3kd0v+VesJd26kTJ8Qfr+58o1g O0mxSqp1gOMZZ+09IN1go0Wosgf3g8+fYm4eIshcuyF5Tc91/A/WT/lVTcFg0ixHQD pndEk7QHxezYNbWSblnyWmFb0XMPZ+XiWdR843/c7l7+w5K6i3jOlnUZ4DjPk5hmcj xipzrq8M+18t8Dl+vR2O20EOGKmYOg6qF32KzUsv1+8pN8aYeeBTVyO9wPJG+cJNyg 3OeQtBsuvdrRA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4Fty6D0Bt1zCqkC; Mon, 31 May 2021 16:17:08 +0200 (CEST)
From: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection@ietf.org>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22
Thread-Index: AQHXU+sDGBjZN5ookUySK5XijzqFcar9puKw
Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 14:17:07 +0000
Message-ID: <24039_1622470628_60B4EFE4_24039_43_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4CDB9412@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CAMMESswK38j+PXQAJ4rDZSNSN-ZjutUSE=fSO0QvoYS3sLRgfA@mail.gmail.com> <879_1620810145_609B99A1_879_373_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4CD9C11E@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAMMESsyv9ohN6yGst8ovvVUXE7YhSn=X0JiDATFrpWa7UyfYWg@mail.gmail.com> <19301_1622208560_60B0F030_19301_97_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4CDB69BB@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAMMESswMtX9MLH=C3zqaScQa-y2vbxqpk4sryWCDpS=BW_3PKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswMtX9MLH=C3zqaScQa-y2vbxqpk4sryWCDpS=BW_3PKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-HZBT1FyNSp1v_61HZ4ohVKa5LY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 14:17:16 -0000

Alvaro,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Both included in -24 just posted.

Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-24

Regards,
--Bruno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 7:58 PM
> To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
> Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
> optimal-route-reflection@ietf.org; IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22
> 
> On May 28, 2021 at 9:29:20 AM, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Bruno:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I just have a couple of minor comments -- I think we're ready to move
> forward. :-)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> > NEW: The IGP location is defined as a node in the IGP topology, is
> > identified by an IP address of this node (e.g. a loopback address), and may
> > be configured on a per route reflector basis, per set of clients, or per
> > client basis.
> 
> [nit] s/is identified/it is identified
> 
> 
> ...
> > NEW: If a backup location is provided, it is used when the nominal IGP
> > location disappear from the IGP (i.e. fails). Just like the failure of the
> > nominal RFC 4456 BGP RR, this may result in changing the paths selected
> and
> > advertised to the clients and in general the post-failure paths are expected
> > to be less optimal. This is dependent on the IGP topologies and the IGP
> > distance between the nominal and the backup location: the smaller the
> > distance the smaller the chance to change the BGP paths.
> >
> > ("Nominal BGP RR" is a shortcut as BGP RR has no notion of
> nominal/backup.
> > Stricto census that would be the failure of the BGP RR advertising the
> > nominal path. I can rephrase if you prefer)
> 
> Suggestion>
> 
>    If a backup location is provided, it is used when the primary IGP location
>    disappears from the IGP (i.e. fails). Just like the failure of a RR
>    [RFC4456], it may result in changing the paths selected and advertised to
>    the clients and in general the post-failure paths are expected to be less
>    optimal. This is dependent on the IGP topologies and the IGP distance
>    between the primary and the backup IGP locations: the smaller the
> distance
>    the smaller the potential impact.
> 
> 
> ...
> > Since we are during the IETF LC, I'll delay the update until you told me so.
> 
> Feel free to submit it whenever you're ready.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.