Re: [Idr] draft-wang-idr-vpn-routes-control-analysis (was Re: rd-orf problem clarification at the local level)

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 26 February 2021 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AF93A0060; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:42:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HgUvaLy6mhBt; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9CF3A003F; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 531E11E44B; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:02:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:02:47 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>
Cc: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, draft-wang-idr-rd-orf@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210226210247.GB27005@pfrc.org>
References: <20210225142155.GA27005@pfrc.org> <A7C19F05-DBCD-4AA8-ADC9-7F608BA9F540@chinatelecom.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <A7C19F05-DBCD-4AA8-ADC9-7F608BA9F540@chinatelecom.cn>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QqvahIFcWHhi4YiitMBjWcE_Oqg>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-wang-idr-vpn-routes-control-analysis (was Re: rd-orf problem clarification at the local level)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:42:15 -0000

Aijun,

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 07:20:45AM +0800, Aijun Wang wrote:
> Thanks for your suggestions!
> I think combine RTC and RD-ORF information can accomplish the fine control for the upstream propagation of unwanted VPN routes.
> We will also try to find other ways to achieve the same effect.

The important thing to take from my comments is that a necessary function is
determining when and how you can determine that there are no more interested
receivers in a set of VPN routes by property.  RD-ORF originally had this in
the context of RD.  This draft potentially widens the problem space.

I think you will find that it's difficult to do this. 

The RT-Constrain example mostly is there to provide a more tractable case
than your base case.

-- Jeff