Re: [Idr] One Administrative Domain using BGP (Fwd: I-D Action: draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-oad-00.txt)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Not sure what you mean by "allow all". Some BGP attributes are only for
IBGP and some only for EBGP. With that what does it mean
considering future protocol extensions ?

Thx,
R.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 5:40 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On March 13, 2023 at 12:09:26 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> Robert:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Today a lot of implementations already support features like
> > next-hop-unchanged on EBGP, or AIGP attribute etc ...
> >
> > Would it not be just much cleaner to enumerate explicitly those features
> on
> > today's EBGP sessions between ASNs under the same administrative domains
> ?
> >
> > Practical aspect is that while you can define the expected behaviour of
> OAD
> > session today - but tomorrow we will likely introduce more BGP protocols
> > extensions which will not going to be reflected in this OAD document. So
> it is
> > going to be really hard to keep track on what sides really intend to do
> when
> > declaring on their edge OAD session type.
> >
> > IMHO explicitly enabling exceptions for plane EBGP sessions will be far
> more
> > practical approach.
>
> The intent is for the EBGP-OAD session to "allow all" so that as new
> extensions are introduces we don't need to update the document. ;-)  For
> specific applications an operator may want to only propagate certain
> extensions -- that can be controlled through policy.
>
> Any exceptions or different behavior to be called out in the draft should
> be for specific items only.
>
>
> There are possibly multiple ways to obtain the same (or similar) outcome.
> :-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.