Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jim,

Thanks a lot for your review and comments. Please see some replies inline:

From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of UTTARO, JAMES
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 8:21 PM
To: Chengli <c.l=[e-mail]>; Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; idr <[e-mail]>
Cc: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)

The benefit of this proposal is that a CV schema does not have be created to match on prefixes on a target node.  The following text seems to imply that “manual configuration” will be required on a frequent basis. As per the text:

“Another possible approach is to configure, on each router, a
   community and the corresponding policies to match the community to
   determine whether to accept the received routes or not.  Such
   mechanism relies on manual configuration thus is considered error-
   prone.”

It would seem that the CV scheme would be put in place for the AFI/SAFI of interest once. What am I missing here? Is this proposal intended to create dynamic overlays controlling the importation of routes of interest?

[Jie] This text in the draft does not limit the use of manual configuration on a frequent base. That said, it is possible that for the same AFI/SAFI, some routes may be targeted at all BGP nodes, while some other routes are targeted at only a small set of nodes. To allow both types of routes to be imported correctly, either the routes targeted at all nodes need to carry a large set of CVs, or the CV schema needs to be enabled or disabled on the nodes on a timely manner.

The proposed mechanism can avoid the CV schema configuration totally, and it does not have the issue in the above case.

RR and PE functionality are clear, what about when PE/RR functionality are on the same node. Although this is not desired there are cases where this occurs. Pls detail the behavior? Does a node have to know what it is? From the text it seems so..

[Jie] The text in section 3 allows a node to be a PE & RR. In this case, it will perform the additional procedure as described in the “if this node is a Route Reflector” sub-paragraph. Perhaps we could further clarify this with “if this node is also a Route Reflector”.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Jie

Thanks,
          Jim Uttaro


From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Chengli
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 7:41 AM
To: Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)


I support the adoption after reading the draft.  The mechanism to steer BGP route distribution to particular BGP nodes is useful in some use cases.

Thanks,
Cheng




From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Chongfeng Xie
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 5:49 PM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)


Hi，folks,
      I support the adoption of this document.  The mechanism in this document is useful for the distribution of BGP routes which are targeted to a subset of nodes.

Best regards
Chongfeng



From: Susan Hares<mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: 2022-09-28 01:30
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
CC: Dongjie (Jimmy)<mailto:[e-mail]>; Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)<mailto:[e-mail]>; Zhuangshunwan<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)
This begins a 2 week WG adoption and IPR call for draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm/__;!!BhdT!jNyS0ABNLzcDVZWOXk_95d4rIGwENFkS72-xxrN7UbdFV9doUnMNWTVcNdMnhtbb6KtrUfdPfU4jgrYtwO3wuA2gduk$>

The authors should respond to this email with an IPR statement.

The WG should consider in their discussion:
1) Will this new  transitive extended community help
in operational networks?

2) What conflicts does this new Extended Community have
with other functions in general BGP route distribution or
VPNs (EVPN, IPVPN)?

3) do you have any concern about the text in the draft?

Cheerily, Sue