Re: [Idr] Adoption and IPR call for draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-03.txt (8/16 to 8/30)

[王巍 <[e-mail]>]

Hi Linda,
   Thanks for your comments, and please see my reply inline.


Best Regards,
Wei
------------------ Original ------------------
From:                                                                                                                        "Linda Dunbar"                                                                                    <[e-mail]&gt;;
Date:&nbsp;Wed, Aug 24, 2022 02:26 AM
To:&nbsp;"Susan Hares"<[e-mail]&gt;;"[e-mail]"<[e-mail]&gt;;

Subject:&nbsp;Re: [Idr] Adoption and IPR call for draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-03.txt (8/16 to 8/30)



  
Wei, Aijun, et al, 
 
&nbsp;
 
I forget to include the questions about draft at my last support message:
  
Page 3 says: 
 
&nbsp;if the "trashing routes" come from the interested VRF, filter on RTs will erase all prefixes from this VRF.
 
&nbsp;
 
why erase all prefixes even if the “trashing routes” only contain a subset of prefixes for the VRF?
 
&nbsp;[WW] RTC aims to tell the peer "I want to receive VPN routes with RTx", if the offending routes carry RTx, RTC can't tell the peer to stop sending these routes unless withdraw the entry with RTx. 

How about the following updated sentence?

"RTC can only filter the VPN routes from the uninterested VRFs, if the "offending routes" come from the interested VRF, RFC mechanism can't filter them."
  
Is the ORF message sent to all peers? Or just a selective peers?
 
“each of them makes a local judgement to determine whether it needs to send VPN Prefix ORF to its peers.”

[WW] Thanks for pointing out this typo, it should be changed to "each of them makes a local judgement to determine whether it needs to send VPN Prefix ORF to its upstream peer."
 
NITs: 
 
Past 6: (you need to do a global change.)
 
past  à passed:
 
When routes associated with <RD31, PE3&gt; tuple past the quota but the prefix limit of VPN1 VRF is not exceeded,

[WW] Thanks, will correct this typo in next update.
 
&nbsp;
 
Linda Dunbar
 
&nbsp;
   
From: Linda Dunbar 
 Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:03 AM
 To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]&gt;; [e-mail]
 Subject: RE: Adoption and IPR call for draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-03.txt (8/16 to 8/30)
 
 
 
&nbsp;
 
&nbsp;
  
Hi Everyone,
 
  
&nbsp;
 
  
&nbsp; &nbsp; I read the draft and all the discussion on the mailing list. I think adopting to WG draft can further &nbsp;improve the draft with more WG &nbsp;discussions. Therefore I support its adoption.
 
  
&nbsp;
 
  
Best Regards,
 
  
Linda
 
&nbsp;
 
  
 
  
From: Idr <[e-mail]&gt; on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]&gt;
 Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 11:55 AM
 To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]&gt;
 Subject: [Idr] Adoption and IPR call for draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-03.txt (8/16 to 8/30) 
  
&nbsp;
 
 
   
This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-03.txt
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf/
 
&nbsp;
 
The authors believe that they have addressed the concerns raised in 
 
the previous 2 WG adoption calls.
 
&nbsp;
 
The WG should consider if:
 
&nbsp;
 
1) The revised text answers the previous concerns regarding 
 
the scope of this draft? 
 
&nbsp;
 
2) Does the revised text provide a useful function for  
 
networks? 
 
&nbsp;
 
3) Are there any additional concerns regarding the new text? 
 
&nbsp;
 
Each of the authors should send an IPR statement for 
 
this version of the draft. 
 
&nbsp;
 
The adoption call was moved to 8/29 to 8/30 to allow questions 
 
to be asked at the IDR interim meeting on 8/29/2022 (10am – 12pm EDT). 
 
&nbsp;
 
Cheers, Sue Hares &nbsp;