Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy - (6/6 to 6/20/2016)

[Andrei Robachevsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear WG,

Susan Hares wrote on 06/06/16 18:40:
> This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call for
> draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy. You can find the draft at:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy/.
> 
>  
> 
> In your comments on adopting this draft, please indicate:
> 
>  
> 
> 1)      “Support” or “no Support”
>

No Support.

I think proposed enhancements to the BGP Open message in signalling the
relationship could be a useful property that should be explored further.
For instance, in cases where a single policy (e.g. peer-peer) can be
applied to the BGP session, this method can be used for automating
setting of the RLP field. I suggest that this amendment is documented in
a separate draft, which I'll support for the WG adoption.

> 2)      Do you feel this is a way to prevent route leaks?
> 

In some cases.

> 3)      Are there any deployment issues that might prevent deployment of
> this enhancement to BGP Open?
> 

Variation of routing policy on per prefix basis.

> 4)      Does this interact with
> draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation?
> 

The proposed OTC flag is similar to the RLP field, but the semantics is
different. I suggest that the considerations for the OTC flag
(especially a single flag vs per-hop) are discussed in the framework of
the the draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation and a best way is
chosen by the WG, rather than having 2 parallel threads of incompatible
solutions.

Full disclosure - I am one of the co-authors of
draft-ietf-idr-route-leak-detection-mitigation

Andrei

>  
> 
> Sue Hares and John Scudder
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>