Re: [Idr] 答复: WG adoption call for draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Xiaohu,


A) Permanently installing routes in RIB & FIB carried in BGP Hellos TLVs
> which are UDP based is something never heard of. Clearly you are up to
> great precedence here. There is no mention in the current draft when such
> routes are removed.
>
> [Xiaohu] It said in the draft that "
>
>    If the timer
>    expires without receipt of a matching Hello from the peer, BGP
>    concludes that the peer no longer wishes to keep BGP session for that
>    link or that the peer has failed.  The BGP peer then deletes the
>    Hello adjacency.  The route towards the BGP neighbor's loopback
>    address that had been dynamically created due to that BGP Hello
>    adjacency SHOULD be deleted accordingly. "
>
>


​You did not responded to the question at all as I never asked about BGP
session above. There is no BGP session between loopbacks till you put
routes in RIB and FIB as loopback is still unreachable. ​In your draft you
are putting the routes from TLVs carried in UDP and not only how to reach
loopback but also all the atomic connected addresses on how to ECMP towards
loopback. Observe that in my proposal I am not doing it.

IMO that is not acceptable.

Now since you quoted the above note that even some of your own co-authors
declared this is going away and session will not be brought down upon
missing hellos. It is sufficient to keep any BGP session up based on the
keepalives, bfd or manual shut.

In fact just few lines below you agree that periodic hellos may not be
necessary when the session is up.

Very confusing picture ...

[Xiaohu] Could you please explicitly point out which TLVs are not needed?
>
>

​All of them. ​

C) Creation of new message instead of using existing BGP message requires
> more changes then necessary. It also allows for extensible framework which
> while normally is a feature here has a clear potential to be rather a bad
> thing.
>
> [Xiaohu] Which existing BGP message could be used for this BGP peer
> auto-discovery purpose from your POV?
>
>

​BGP Open Message. ​





> D) Sending BGP Hellos periodically - after session is up does not seems to
> bring any value especially for p2p links. For LANs on the other hand (if
> such requirement is in place) there are much better solutions other then
> periodic BGP Hellos.
>
> [Xiaohu] Good point. We could consider how to optimize it in the future.
> Do you have any concrete suggestions for such optimization?
>
>

​as above ... ​

​Thx,
R.​