Re: [Idr] Alia's AD review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

> One procedural and one technical question.  Did you intend a date of June 4, 2015?  If so, why? 

Not sure to what you are referring. Perhaps you're pointing at the most recently posted revision? If so, that was Hannes on, erm, 4th June.

I have only sent email so far and not posted an update. i still need to work through Alvaro's review before I can do that. May be a few more days, but hopeful before the next 4th June.

> Technical:  Do you believe that sections 6.1.1 and sections 6.1.5 are sufficient to describe
> what happens if the extra NLRI do not get sent the private infrastructure of route-reflectors
> Sections include below from -11. 

Actually, my level of anticipation is different from other authors :-)
I don't see why this is necessarily a RR function. Any BGP speaker with access to the network topology (e.g., an ASBR) and with suitable policy configured, could export as BGP-LS.
The challenges are:
- How does the exporter know on which sessions to do BGP-LS and which not?
  I think an RR has the same problem.
- How does a receiver distinguish between normal BGP data and BGP-LS data?
  Possibly it should not be receiving both, but if it does, it can look at the NLRI.
- Will BGP-LS over-stretch a BGP-speaking router?
  Possibly (in which case use an RR) and possibly not. Depends on implementation.
- Will BGP-LS updates swamp other BGP updates?
  Just like IGP-TE updates, this is all about thresholds and policy. IMHO, an 
  implementation should provide knobs for this and an operator should choose
  whether to offload to an RR.

Probably could add some scribbles about this.

Adrian