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

Robert Raszuk <> Sun, 14 February 2021 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECCD73A0E2E for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:38:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ebfsxboJ5p8 for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:38:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53B053A0E12 for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:38:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x1so5737361ljj.11 for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:38:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VHcORnF0LEzHql93EUQljKwIfnCjMEaRquaJlbpzT2E=; b=bpfoZlshem8uqolyT0ilpn8m+3I+fSAehhSpHEdzQShGc2wWVzPsHsiy0SSZeWqNc9 ewi0Uw6UVGwo9Eb0cVkYnWyVS5I1KoelPuyw2yd695+eJ/ejK4Cfldj8vTVwWhxC1lHf Pfp1xGiLGnaWRmOC6O7j3LTbE1xrb4BMaJqsNaSlzcOGW3+PE9exVTEwNfnGFyZfcv1N +GZZjElosYqmxoZDs2SQB2EJf992miPSoZffFgNVOHGRjK1foBd1+daNNnf5EL0Roxuo J2lPwSIK1L5Bn1zo7Xs/gQKGr6aiTRB95QY/uWt/jFZUbLCrC5B2/5qg9VDYTCYUCwOF nUgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VHcORnF0LEzHql93EUQljKwIfnCjMEaRquaJlbpzT2E=; b=hJw/APChhyElwvjaljOJLMnV7dWCk5Im1CCFDuREm8T1b3gaGaKg0osrh74kpTiv+n joEk3RxchpmxbEhb9Pbi17YfkmwzSwmdOSo0nTGx/LMOjisoel4TYCyOChBI+xXKI41L gBia0wqXjzppOuNRU1gatHjl+j9trao+Iu4SGPwC3P4vW64ntYCihaLM3AkdaflW08uo xC8slHKiL2W//Y7t1pNN8CGBtqTM4MlMVzWc4gX7kMbGb9jwNdmMl9+rr7/CLPcjGEr8 VNhfAwtNyBfURavd+NkLZXy71I7vvhA+Haewy5flNZjhZZRuJn+2rMKo4pOOeTFy3EQI 0nug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532TiVRuCdNDOwLj0Uw0cbsdOUhdgM45FzDbMHaOq18KAmRJTu3q 2hjlwCc78NmBBZmSTdbaScvmLNkhzA+PGHvmHIoV9stUmUU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/qHAp6fDieXyHOYKBrWEI448ViJIpOuosX4UjgEE056BWexx7RH0E9EcyRondr+FJSHHCCumKkZkRgvQKPIg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:324:: with SMTP id b4mr7976401ljp.318.1613345878344; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 15:37:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <01bf01d7016a$135cd0d0$3a167270$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 00:37:47 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Aijun Wang <>
Cc: Susan Hares <>, "idr@ietf. org" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fa971505bb545b51"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 23:38:04 -0000

Hello Aijun,

I have been re-thinking over a weekend this entire discussion.

I think I have a suggestion for you which addresses my concerns and I
believe also addresses yours (and your co-authors) requirements.

As I said number of times I still suggest we do not send RD to filter.
Instead we send tuple RD+RTs and only filter VPN routes on logical AND of
all (all as there can be more then one RT importing given route
therefore we need to include intersection of local import RTs and RTs
carried with "offending" routes).

And to make this easily transitive I recommend we just define a new SAFI
for it. We can call it RTC+ or Enhanced RTC as examples. Syntax would be
identical to RTC, semantics opposite. Today RTC defines RTs which PEs need.
Here we would signal description of subset of those which are "excessive"
to be dropped on the peer.

Sending it with ORF say RDRT-ORD (while works p2p)  I do not buy this
implicit regeneration hack say at RRs, RRs doing option C or ASBRs
performing option B. So sending it in new SAFI IMHO would be much cleaner.

Just a thought how we could perhaps move forward here.

Kind regards,

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 3:32 AM Aijun Wang <>

> Hi, Susan:
> Thanks for your suggestions. More responses from the operators are welcome!
> We think this mechanism can let the network cope with dynamically the
> extraordinary scenarios for VPN routes advertisement, especially the
> inter-AS Option B/C scenarios.
> This can certainly encourage the widespread deployment of inter-AS option
> B/C solution(especially for EVPN/VXLAN, EVPN/SRv6) increase the VPN
> services coverage and revenue of the operators.
> There may be some details procedures and device behaviors need to be
> clarified further, but this is not unsolvable, considering there are so
> many experts within IDR WG.
> Thanks Robert, Jakob, Jim and Acee for the technical challenges to let
> us/IDRer understand the solution more clearly.
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom