Re: [Idr] Returning draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis to WG, new 2 week discussion period

[Christoph Loibl <[e-mail]>]

Hi IDR,

After some discussion on the list and also off-list I uploaded a new version of the draft (-17) that seems to have enough support from the WG (basically what John suggested initially). If there are very strong arguments against this change, please suggest a different fix to the problem John pointed out. John wanted to keep the discussion open until 28th June.

Cheers Christoph
  
OLD:

 A Flow Specification NLRI must be validated such that it is
 considered feasible if and only if:

    a) The originator of the Flow Specification matches the originator
    of the best-match unicast route for the destination prefix
    embedded in the Flow Specification.

    b) There are no more specific unicast routes, when compared with
    the flow destination prefix, that has been received from a
    different neighboring AS than the best-match unicast route, which
    has been determined in step a).


NEW: 

   A Flow Specification NLRI must be validated such that it is
   considered feasible if and only if all of the below is true:

      a) A destination prefix component is embedded in the Flow
      Specification.

      b) The originator of the Flow Specification matches the originator
      of the best-match unicast route for the destination prefix
      embedded in the Flow Specification.

      c) There are no more specific unicast routes, when compared with
      the flow destination prefix, that has been received from a
      different neighboring AS than the best-match unicast route, which
      has been determined in rule b).

   Rule a) MAY be relaxed by configuration, permitting Flow
   Specifications that include no destination prefix component.  If such
   is the case, rules b) and c) are moot and MUST be disregarded.



-- 
Christoph Loibl
[e-mail] | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at