Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Jeff: 

Please provide more details on your opinion on this information to the list:


"Personally, I think it'd be wise to not process the enhanced RR procedures
until GR is complete but I think that can be an implementation decision."
(The justification is that there's a *lot* of work going on while processing
GR and it's more valuable to get RIBs in some initial state of
synchronization rather than worry about trying to fill in holes that might
be present in the midst of it.)

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 10:26 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Keyur Patel (keyupate)'; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:23:07PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> IDR WG:
> 
> We will have a 1 week WG LC on this version of the 
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt
> 
> Please comment.  It would help if you would indicate: 
> support/no-support in your discussion.

I continue to support the draft.  I think the clarifications for covering
end-of-rib procedures (regardless of whether GR is being used or not) are
valuable.

Personally, I think it'd be wise to not process the enhanced RR procedures
until GR is complete but I think that can be an implementation decision.
(The justification is that there's a *lot* of work going on while processing
GR and it's more valuable to get RIBs in some initial state of
synchronization rather than worry about trying to fill in holes that might
be present in the midst of it.)

-- Jeff