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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Dear Aijun,

Sorry but I simply can't resist it ...

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:54 AM Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi, John:
>
> Glad to hear your concerns. Let me explain them to you:
> 1) There are various reasons that the receiving PE is overflowed by the
> excessive VPN routes. For example, the capabilities of PEs within the
> network are different, we can’t block the source directly just solely based
> on the request from one PE.
>


What you just stated above is simply the wrong thing to do in fact
irrespective where the drop of the routes would take place in the network.

If capacity of any PE does not permit serving given VPN such VPN should not
be provisioned on such PE.

Adding protocol extensions to address provisioning mistakes (not accidental
as stated above but well thought onboarding of a VPN to a network) and in
the same time partially breaking connectivity within subject VPNs should
not be endorsed by any IETF WG.

In fact what you have stated above is a clear proof that we do not even
have a well defined problem statement. All we have is a solution which here
and there in the network breaks VPN connectivity.


> 2) For the quota setting, actually, the operator need only the per PE
resource allocation under one VRF, and in most of
> the situations, such per PE allocation will be same for one VPN in every
PE

You mean under each VRF on each PE.

And please explain how that new number should be different from today's VRF
prefix limit ? Why there is need to introduce new limit?

Thx,
R.

>