Re: [Idr] Adoption and IPR call for draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-03.txt (8/16 to 8/30)

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 29, 2022, at 5:22 AM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Sue,
> 
> > You might consider that Aijun and others do not have the ability to quickly take the rogue PE out of the network.
> 
> No one is suggesting that. 
> 
> The current methods to mitigate the issue are as stated number of times: 
> 
> * local drop of overflowing routes at the weak PE  (no new spec needed)
> 
> * protection at the PE-CE boundary at the src PE (no new spec needed)

Also known as local incoming policy?

From RFC 5291:
1 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5291.html#section-1>.  Introduction

   Currently, it is not uncommon for a BGP speaker [BGP-4 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5291.html#ref-BGP-4>] to receive,
   and then filter out some unwanted routes from its peers based on its
   local routing policy.  Since the generation and transmission of
   routing updates by the sender, as well as the processing of routing
   updates by the receiver consume resources, it may be beneficial if
   the generation of such unwanted routing updates can be avoided in the
   first place.

You might not like the feature Robert, but it's exactly what ORF was designed for.

It'd be beneficial to the working group to cease this endless questioning of the use case (that you don't like) and instead focus on the technical correctness of the solution.

-- Jeff