Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-25: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Ok - Will update the draft accordingly.

Many thx !
Robert.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:28 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Robert:
>
> Hi!
>
>
> Given the text in §4:
>
>    The achievement of optimal routing between clients of different
>    clusters relies upon all route reflectors learning all paths that are
>    eligible for consideration.  In order to satisfy this requirement,
>    BGP add-path [RFC7911] needs to be deployed between route reflectors.
>
> ...making rfc7911 a Normative reference makes sense to me.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On June 16, 2021 at 5:08:03 PM, Robert Raszuk ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
> Hello Ben & Alvaro,
>>
>> > Regarding moving referencing of RFC7911 to normative let's observe that
>> it
>> > may be required only in one specific deployment scenario of using
>> multiple
>> > clusters in non encapsulating networks for IPv4/IPv6 AFs. It is clearly
>> not
>> > required for other deployment models of BGP ORR. Therefore I am not
>> sure if
>> > it deserves the elevated level of referencing in the document. But if
>> the
>> > above use is a sufficient reason to treat it as normative reference I
>> > personally have no problem moving it.
>>
>> I'm happy to leave this to the responsible AD; my comment stems from the
>> IESG statement at
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
>> that points out that "even references that are relevant only for optional
>> protocol features must be classified as normative" (if they would
>> otherwise
>> meet the criteria.  Only needed in some deployment scenarios is not quite
>> the same as being an optional feature, though, so I think there's still
>> some element of judgment needed.
>
>
> In the case of this work the situation is not really about Add-Paths RFC
> being necessary for the proposed enhancement/protocol feature either
> mandatory or optional. It is helpful to some Route Reflector deployment
> scenarios with or without this extension. ORR only observes that to get
> consistent IBGP paths Add-Paths may be used between RR clusters. So could
> Diverse-Path technique and in some cases perhaps also consistent controller
> based path installation. There can be even more ways to accomplish
> consistent path selection pool across clusters.
>
> But as you suggest I think moving RFC7911 to the normative reference
> should not be a problem if AD or anyone else finds this appropriate.
>
> I will therefore hold publishing -26 till we get some clarity on this
> point from an AD.
>
> Many thx,
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>