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

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

I support the WG adoption.
Answers to the questions posted by the Chair:


1)      Will this new ORF filter reduce routing information at key points?
Yes, the proposed approach prevents more routes sent to a PE whose VRF overflows.


2)      Should the WG consider this draft given it has an IPR claim or Would the IDR WG prefer another approach?
Yes,  because the IPR has  FRAND royalty-bearing licenses

3) Is this draft ready to be adopted and refined as WG draft?
Yes.

Some questions to the Author:

1)      On Page 3 (right below Figure 1), you have:
"When the VRF of VPN1 in PE1 overflows, due to PE1 and other PEs are
not iBGP neighbors, BGP Maximum Prefix Features cannot work, so the
problem on PE2 cannot be known"

Do you mean that "the problem on PE1 cannot be known" to others?


2)      2 Does PE1 have preconfigured "BGP Maximum prefixes" expected from others? If more than expected prefixes are received, is it because other PEs' fault in sending trashing prefixes? Or is it because the PE1 configuration error?

3)      RD-ORF ROUTE-REFRESH message is propagated to all other PEs, Do all the PEs receiving the message stop sending "that VPN route" (as described in 5.1.3?


Linda Dunbar

From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 2:28 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

Hi Sue and All,

I support the adoption as a co-author.


1)      Will this new ORF filter reduce routing information at key points?
Yes

2)      Should the WG consider this draft given it has an IPR claim or
Would the IDR WG prefer another approach?
Yes,
3) Is this draft ready to be adopted and refined as WG draft?
Yes, the extension is useful for this scenario, and we may explore more scenes with it.

Best Regards,
Haibo


From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:38 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (from 2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

This draft defines a new Outbound Route Filter (ORF) type, called the
Route Distinguisher ORF (RD-ORF).  RD-ORF is applicable when the
routers do not exchange VPN routing information directly (e.g.
routers in single-domain connect via Route Reflector, or routers in
Option B/Option AB/Option C cross-domain scenario).

Please be aware that this draft has one IPR statement attached.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4579/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fipr%2F4579%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cf05240296188408116d608d8cd9ddfdb%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637485425256503393%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Z0HESRyWp%2FKF2Jn7mJe6V8yqMgwYnnt1YhfmKPXR6cw%3D&reserved=0>..

Please consider the following questions in your review and comments:

1) Will this new ORF filter reduce routing information at key points?
2) Should the WG consider this draft given it has an IPR claim or
    Would the IDR WG prefer another approach?
3) Is this draft ready to be adopted and refined as WG draft?

Cheerily, Susan Hares