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

Hi, Robert:

It seems that your comments are still based on your previous understanding of the mechanism.
Let me address your concerns inline, and wish you can update them accordingly, so we need not loop back again.

And to Jim: wish you can refresh or review the update draft before following Robert.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Aug 20, 2022, at 16:28, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > and all the comments raised in the IDR list have been addressed
> 
> That is not true. 
> 
> For the record I am still opposing adoption of this draft. 
> 
> Sample list of issues which were not addressed: 
> 
> #1 - RD allocation can be per VRF or Global in a given VPN. This scheme works only in the case of per VRF allocation. 

[WAJ]The proposed mechanism works both in per VRF allocation and global allocation(in this case, the source PE will be attached)

> 
> #2 - Filtering by src RD can result in loss of reachability to other VPNs on a given node which only import subset of routes. 

[WAJ] Let me emphasize the key point again, “the filter is not only based on source RD”.  I think you can review more carefully the following two sections: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf#section-4.1.1 and in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf#section-4.1.2

> 
> #3 - Use of prefix ORF can be applied where prefix is just /64 RD without any new draft. The draft says: 
> 
>    Using Address Prefix ORF to filter VPN routes need to pre-
>    configuration, but it is impossible to know which prefix may cause
>    overflow in advance.
> 
>     .. which clearly is not correct as irrespective on the encoding you need to know what RD to push. 
>     Here in this context of RFC5292 PREFIX == RD == /64 PREFIX

[WAJ] This point has been discussed throughly in the first round discussions. The key answer is that you cannot know in advance which RD will cause the overflow VPN routes. And one more point again, current VPN ORF prefixes doesn’t depend only the automatic extracted RD information. 

> 
> #4 - Change of ORF list results in advertisement of ALL routes of a a given AFI/SAFI to the peer. 
>         That is the same irrespective if IMMEDIATE or DEFER flags are set. That puts burden on the peer especially in 
>         VPN cases when the number of routes may be high. 

[WAJ] What you described is the current ORF mechanism. There are some spaces to optimize it.

> 
> #5 - Sender of ORF does not know when it is safe to remove the filter. Manual action is still required. 

[WAJ] This is same as other mechanism. The manual intervention is to prevent the oscillation in some critical conditions.

> 
> #6 - Control plane memory is not an issue these days. To mitigate the real issue this draft tries to solve a PE which 
>        suffers from excessive number of VPN routes with given RD can suppress installation of those routes to data plane 
>        or locally drop it. Signalling it to the peer is practically not needed and only causes more issues then it solves. 
[WAJ]Control plane is also important and should pay more attention to it.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Robert
> 
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 3:48 AM Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> Hi Sue and WG,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I support the WG adoption of this draft.
>> 
>> The current draft has been actively discussed by the WG over the past months, and all the comments raised in the IDR list have been addressed, now it is a result of the joint efforts of the WG and worth continuing to optimize it as a WG draft.
>> 
>> The solution would help to quickly isolate a faulty VPN and avoid further deterioration of the network operation status.
>> 
>> I am unaware of other undisclosed IPR for this draft.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> 
>> Shunwan
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 11:56 PM
>> To: idr@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Idr] Adoption and IPR call for draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-03.txt (8/16 to 8/30)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-03.txt
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf/
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The authors believe that they have addressed the concerns raised in
>> 
>> the previous 2 WG adoption calls.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The WG should consider if:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 1) The revised text answers the previous concerns regarding
>> 
>> the scope of this draft?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 2) Does the revised text provide a useful function for
>> 
>> networks?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 3) Are there any additional concerns regarding the new text?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Each of the authors should send an IPR statement for
>> 
>> this version of the draft.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The adoption call was moved to 8/29 to 8/30 to allow questions
>> 
>> to be asked at the IDR interim meeting on 8/29/2022 (10am – 12pm EDT).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Cheers, Sue Hares  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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