IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 26 February 2021 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 4CA083A11F3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:26:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 2Et9b-0qq3Oc for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x134.google.com (mail-lf1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E979E3A11C7 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x134.google.com with SMTP id j19so16234007lfr.12 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:26:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2RqcHg3rX6wbWYsinPD6e4a+QPCyt/vbdzIHLUN1jXo=; b=ASbI2CBEM9SvZNRLI5aHST282MyUehJ5BJfmW/HHLzQvuIihU+gze4oRm9CV1Hw2U3 bEPZXmcqsS6N4j306s+THf5cKYWI35LyCd9Q50a/+2ToCuFR8F2TabSVGaHVt4EgPxcC ZeBWsggY7osJQYV+EeBteaGyVfTBZzMGnJISdorMa9djBxn81k4c/MUCKkX7FTKWzrLg wDN2hoVQhsQfMKxlCtoV+Vl+lfFqv8Zo0dqDJyLMAy9Qd7Ie0PVDF4h7si4/hiGTtKyf FVxxA9XiGFWMxfefyF9Z/2NKJc/vVoA9ewSYn5dh+W7Tfd7vFIF8mQIeSQx3QPgX2ELt nc0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2RqcHg3rX6wbWYsinPD6e4a+QPCyt/vbdzIHLUN1jXo=; b=iWXUQXFR//Bo/S9VnANpFGKpoPPctLhiXsTUa4T5aXu79N943Npo69rUVGDGQoscdK /Cukx8s8XlJGEnCr0zJCqY1WkgypPoWWhkpMLrUhyjQObvpNyLRhMz+2WE1kMLDXUjQ9 4+TFqnnWNGfUTXQfo+X0ILOH6O7Phe1k62t87HpD4uuQHdhaAcoLNVZYWuuWqixSNeJT /5eH8B6y1H4p4jRwEjcWHcR6ALQ+gogUW0TBahAHxBGsaGaDrrOKdjVN2lVcmNTZDyDU pRSY/hj1dbPnfqyZNdV2uOo3u4CxM+3NOOSX7XBiX7oepC7EAE7BtLP2SsnCxPzYGicB cIIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530zP2Vkx8XsbCnDIACgIFnSLIz6m3rQFjf0rMl1snI4mULzuOhs Hsxa6/zMDyeJMTidRdk9Gm85bwMOD44PDimn/3OYoQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJoMSX/RpLwTzyinWDhIVO6mM6p0l/Z8EAaNB8JBRGhKZ6y0nErp+6kQhxcLp0JnOO6bAMQ7XXW/QIbizkSLg=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:c14c:: with SMTP id r73mr3108148lff.581.1614382009913; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:26:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210225142155.GA27005@pfrc.org> <A7C19F05-DBCD-4AA8-ADC9-7F608BA9F540@chinatelecom.cn> <CABNhwV0EeUt-aue74xK9jAO-9MJXuj6kzNegwyC=d5o3Wd6aXA@mail.gmail.com> <20210226210823.GC27005@pfrc.org> <CABNhwV3UB1Fn3oavw-sX6LpC_cod8jNC8Rt=gqw9guTnDYH=gw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV3UB1Fn3oavw-sX6LpC_cod8jNC8Rt=gqw9guTnDYH=gw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 00:26:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMEAdKLigs+sD_ui=gayN7QudPWm=Y7EKc-vEneK0-hq4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, draft-wang-idr-rd-orf@ietf.org, Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003ba5af05bc459a43"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SWhE8kCejNOrBbEWegOZ6ez798A>
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 23:26:53 -0000

>
>     Gyan> The major caveat with Prefix ORF is if the number of prefixes is
> a high order of magnitude would make it not feasible such as a 100k route
> flood.  Since the RD ORF is meant to mitigate the overflow PE the use case
> would always be a very high number of prefixes that could cause resources
> exhaustion.
>

RD is nothing else then /64 prefix.

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status