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

[Igor Malyushkin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Haibo,

2) It is unpractical to set the quota value for <RT>, or <RT, PE> under
VRF, because RT can't uniquely distinguish one VRF on one PE.
What if a VRF has several RDs for its routes? RFC4364 and RFC4659 don't
restrict this behavior and even more, it explicitly describes it. So, RD
also can't uniquely distinguish one VRF. Looks like we need a different
marker for all routes belonging to the same source VRF. Say, VPN ID
community or something like that.


ср, 24 авг. 2022 г. в 18:26, Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang=
[e-mail]>:

> Hi Sue and WG,
>
>
>
> I support this adoption.
>
> This draft proposes the mechanism to control the overflow of VPN routes
> within one VRF from influencing other VPNs on the same device
> automatically.
>
>
>
> The updated contents have accommodated the suggestions and addressed the
> comments raised within the WG discussions. Some additional concerns can be
> addressed after the adoption.
>
>
>
> I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR to this draft.
>
>
>
> To make the actual progress of this draft, we should avoid to discuss the
> solved points back and forth. For example, RTC mechanism is not suitable
> for the scenarios that described in this adoption draft, because:
>
> 1) RTC has no any automatic detection mechanism to determine which RT
> should be withdrawn now.
>
> 2) It is unpractical to set the quota value for <RT>, or <RT, PE> under
> VRF, because RT can't uniquely distinguish one VRF on one PE.
>
> 3) It is dangerous to propagate the RT based filter rule unconditionally
> in the intra-domain or inter-domain wide, as that done in current RTC
> mechanism.
>
>
>
> The conclusion, RTC is not the right direction to accomplish the goal.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Haibo
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Susan Hares
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2022 11:56 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [Idr] Adoption and IPR call for
> draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-03.txt (8/16 to 8/30)
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> The authors believe that they have addressed the concerns raised in
>
> the previous 2 WG adoption calls.
>
>
>
> The WG should consider if:
>
>
>
> 1) The revised text answers the previous concerns regarding
>
> the scope of this draft?
>
>
>
> 2) Does the revised text provide a useful function for
>
> networks?
>
>
>
> 3) Are there any additional concerns regarding the new text?
>
>
>
> Each of the authors should send an IPR statement for
>
> this version of the draft.
>
>
>
> 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).
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue Hares
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>