Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-04.txt

James:

Can you explain what you'd like to see in the changes? 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: UTTARO, JAMES [mailto:ju1738@att.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 8:44 AM
To: 'Susan Hares'; 'Juan Alcaide'; 'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'
Cc: 'idr@ietf.org'; 'jgralak@juniper.net'
Subject: RE: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-04.txt

What would be great is that the features that are being used are
standardized across vendors. The current approach where each implementation
varies in behavior will make life difficult.  

Jim Uttaro

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 3:53 AM
To: 'Juan Alcaide'; 'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'
Cc: idr@ietf.org; jgralak@juniper.net
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-04.txt

Juan: 

Do you think something needs to change in this draft?  This is the last day
of the WG adoiption call. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juan Alcaide
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 5:27 PM
To: Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Cc: idr@ietf.org; jgralak@juniper.net; Susan Hares
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-04.txt

Hi,

Let me chip using a previous discussion inputs.

When using local-as, Cisco prepends AS on inbound updates from eBGP peers. 
I understand Juniper prepends AS on outbounds updates towards eBGP peers. 
In most cases, Cisco approach is better.

> > > > Consider
> > > >
> > > > R1 (AS1) ----(local-as 2) R2(AS3)--- R3(AS3) --- R4 (AS4)
> > > >          ebgp                    iBGP
> > > >
> > > > Cisco:
> > > >
> > > > R1: X
> > > > R2: 2 X
> > > > R3: 2 X
> > > > R4: 3 2 X
> > > >
> > > > Juniper
> > > >
> > > > R1: X
> > > > R2: X
> > > > R3: 2 X
> > > > R4: 3 2 X
> > > >
> > > > I think it's prefereable that R2 and R3 have the same AS-PATH. 
Otherwise
> > > > you can have inconsistent best-path decission inside AS3

-Juan

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

> On 4/9/15, 12:43 PM, "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me review the document and query Alvaro to make sure it addresses 
>> his concerns.
>>
>> On re-doing WG LC, we can do this in parallel with the other reviews 
>> I'll need to redo (security directorate, routing directorate, 
>> ops-directorate and gen-art). I'll start both sequences at the same 
>> time once I've heard from Alvaro.
>
> I¹ll go read it, but my gut reaction is that we should go back through 
> (WGLC, etc.).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr