Re: [Idr] Clarifications on draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zhenqiang Li,

The objective was not to change the base BGP decision process or the BGP
propagation rules for this SAFI. I hope that explains the current text.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 1:53 PM [e-mail] <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello authors and all,
>
> Hope it is not too late to make clarifications on this draft.
>
> This draft says one or more IPv4 address format route target extended
> community attached to the SR Policy advertisement and that indicates the
> intended headend of such an SR Policy advertisement.
> And a BGP node advertises a received SR Policy NLRI to its IBGP neighbors according
> to normal IBGP propagation rules.
>
> Here a BGP node can be a RR(Route Reflector) which will reflect all the SR
> Policies to its IBGP peers regardless of the route target attached to the
> policies. So the IBGP peer node as the headend will receive lots of
> policies that are not intended for it because those policies have no route
> target that indicates the received peer node.
>
> In my opinion, the rules for RR to reflect SR policy with route target
> SHOULD be enhanced. RR SHOULD reflect related policies to relevant peers
> according to the route target attached to the policies.
>
> ------------------------------
> Best Regards,
> Zhenqiang Li
>
> [e-mail]
>
>