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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,


> > First when BGP max prefix used session should get terminated with a
> peer.
>
> That's not their intent.
>

Of course. This was just along the lines of their comparison to max prefix
limit.


> They're doing this on VPN routes, not iBGP distributed IPv4 unicast routes.
>

Of course.

But as you know for VPNs there are few different types of demux VPN labels.
One of them is per vrf label where before any forwarding IPv4 unicast
lookup is done at the VRF's FIB.

If you have scenarios where you think dropping the VPN routes that would be
> used in a L3VPN VRF context is harmful, I'm sure the authors would
> appreciate explicit examples.


Few examples:

*  EIBGP load balancing will not work for multihomed site and per VRF
label.
* PE-CE protection will not work.
* Active-Backup multihomed site breaks if we start dropping say more
specific routes and suddenly large volume of traffic will be taking
different then planned forwarding path
etc ...

Many thx,
R.