Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-22

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On May 28, 2021 at 9:29:20 AM, [e-mail] wrote:


Bruno:

Hi!

I just have a couple of minor comments -- I think we're ready to move
forward. :-)

Thanks!

Alvaro.



...
> NEW: The IGP location is defined as a node in the IGP topology, is
> identified by an IP address of this node (e.g. a loopback address), and may
> be configured on a per route reflector basis, per set of clients, or per
> client basis.

[nit] s/is identified/it is identified


...
> NEW: If a backup location is provided, it is used when the nominal IGP
> location disappear from the IGP (i.e. fails). Just like the failure of the
> nominal RFC 4456 BGP RR, this may result in changing the paths selected and
> advertised to the clients and in general the post-failure paths are expected
> to be less optimal. This is dependent on the IGP topologies and the IGP
> distance between the nominal and the backup location: the smaller the
> distance the smaller the chance to change the BGP paths.
>
> ("Nominal BGP RR" is a shortcut as BGP RR has no notion of nominal/backup.
> Stricto census that would be the failure of the BGP RR advertising the
> nominal path. I can rephrase if you prefer)

Suggestion>

   If a backup location is provided, it is used when the primary IGP location
   disappears from the IGP (i.e. fails). Just like the failure of a RR
   [RFC4456], it may result in changing the paths selected and advertised to
   the clients and in general the post-failure paths are expected to be less
   optimal. This is dependent on the IGP topologies and the IGP distance
   between the primary and the backup IGP locations: the smaller the distance
   the smaller the potential impact.


...
> Since we are during the IETF LC, I'll delay the update until you told me so.

Feel free to submit it whenever you're ready.