Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

> What will you do in the scenarios that described in this draft ?

As already stated the solution which is deployed in production networks to
prevent scenario described in the draft is not to allow "overwhelming"
amount of routes to enter your network from any VPN.

When you sell VPN service you agree with customers how many routes they
will be injecting into your network. In many cases you even ask for
specific routes which you apply ingress policy to make sure only those
prefixes as expected enter your network.

Same on PE-CE some on Inter-AS option A, B or C or mix of any of the above.

Now if all of the above is not done or done with mistakes and you indeed
experience to many routes to be handled by data plane you stop locally
importing those routes to local VRFs by VRF shutdown. The good thing here
is that this will be noticed by all attached customers as their dynamic
routing will propagate withdraws.

If you are concern that the control plane is not going to keep up you apply
locally inbound drop based on whatever criteria you like (RT, RD etc ...)
and raise alarms and again propagate withdraws to locally attached CEs or
peer's ASBR.

So I am pretty sure none of the suggested by WG tools which have been in
place are going to be sufficient for you. So at this point I will let IDR
chairs and AD to decide on the next steps fwd.

Many thx,
Robert