Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22.txt

bruno.decraene@orange.com Fri, 15 January 2021 09:59 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 3805D3A03EB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 01:59:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.117
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.117 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_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 kTkfqIGX0BIm for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 01:59:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B03693A03C9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 01:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DHGqM2H1vzCr7P; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:59:11 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1610704751; bh=8a+sRcV3OscAXh7A9ieCzYnl6f42yxOf/vWMQA3vl+M=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=ucSzf53nEdA9sUeE7szpOsQ4IZnmsSM4Pk/NtUqRqBZvxmgRLJKppG3xNUOl7xWjI dV/xcw7khVZtzxunw6PDZl000BWF0Sqk+BMnGR3MjKjwCEULpUnmjnKx//aCf19pu7 snTnIyygbDFgbb/MkX6YEwpvQNEwXn9yh2SRDPk8pSkYdxBj48p/z76r5J8mxDL4JL dUlKLFZSziWyYbTPr0V6fOdOmv81yWosTIxWh+gWA2LGcu6/8uG7IQj8qlFtBqyQK1 AhlEqc3JhIiB2g6D+k8dBbpAcGtoN0CqcvpdUXOQXUL7GjllHXRNgo+AYHbSQBk9++ OUi9o/sxcY2/g==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.104]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DHGqM1b06zyQn; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:59:11 +0100 (CET)
From: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22.txt
Thread-Index: AQHW6xyaVZ+ZWBGWMUiCeCla9Z63BKoobWNg
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 09:59:10 +0000
Message-ID: <20373_1610704751_6001676F_20373_24_14_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A490944A3@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <161070108492.26390.2445713377934404067@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <161070108492.26390.2445713377934404067@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/3WMGjfVpVl_BVAEDbY4oeDn5Jl4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22.txt
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: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 09:59:14 -0000

Hi WG,

Following 3 directorate reviews and a set of editorial comments sent privately, we have uploaded a new version.

> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection/
> A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22

The directorate reviews had already been discussed on the list.
The editorial comment are significant including some change in the structure of the table of content, so we'd like to invite everyone to check the diff.

In particular there was a significant editorial error in two titles where ORR was translated as "optimal route refresh" instead of "optimal route reflection". That editorial error had been introduced in -19. That's unfortunate as the meaning is different but from all comments we have received, every reader had understood that the scope of the document is IBGP Route Reflection.

Thanks,
--Bruno, on behalf of all authors.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-
> drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 9:58 AM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: idr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.
> 
>         Title           : BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
>         Authors         : Robert Raszuk
>                           Christian Cassar
>                           Erik Aman
>                           Bruno Decraene
>                           Kevin Wang
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22.txt
> 	Pages           : 14
> 	Date            : 2021-01-15
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document defines an extension to BGP route reflectors.  On route
>    reflectors, BGP route selection is modified in order to choose the
>    best path from the standpoint of their clients, rather than from the
>    standpoint of the route reflectors.  Multiple types of granularity
>    are proposed, from a per client BGP route selection or to a per peer
>    group, depending on the scaling and precision requirements on route
>    selection.  This solution is particularly applicable in deployments
>    using centralized route reflectors, where choosing the best route
>    based on the route reflector IGP location is suboptimal.  This
>    facilitates, for example, best exit point policy (hot potato
>    routing).
> 
>    The solution relies upon all route reflectors learning all paths
>    which are eligible for consideration.  Best path selection is
>    performed in each route reflector based on the IGP cost from a
>    selected location in the link state IGP.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-
> reflection-22
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-
> reflection-22
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.