Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-04.txt

Juan: 

Do you think something needs to change in this draft?  This is the last day
of the WG adoiption call. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juan Alcaide
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 5:27 PM
To: Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Cc: idr@ietf.org; jgralak@juniper.net; Susan Hares
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-04.txt

Hi,

Let me chip using a previous discussion inputs.

When using local-as, Cisco prepends AS on inbound updates from eBGP peers. 
I understand Juniper prepends AS on outbounds updates towards eBGP peers. 
In most cases, Cisco approach is better.

> > > > Consider
> > > >
> > > > R1 (AS1) ----(local-as 2) R2(AS3)--- R3(AS3) --- R4 (AS4)
> > > >          ebgp                    iBGP
> > > >
> > > > Cisco:
> > > >
> > > > R1: X
> > > > R2: 2 X
> > > > R3: 2 X
> > > > R4: 3 2 X
> > > >
> > > > Juniper
> > > >
> > > > R1: X
> > > > R2: X
> > > > R3: 2 X
> > > > R4: 3 2 X
> > > >
> > > > I think it's prefereable that R2 and R3 have the same AS-PATH. 
Otherwise
> > > > you can have inconsistent best-path decission inside AS3

-Juan

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

> On 4/9/15, 12:43 PM, "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me review the document and query Alvaro to make sure it addresses 
>> his concerns.
>>
>> On re-doing WG LC, we can do this in parallel with the other reviews 
>> I'll need to redo (security directorate, routing directorate, 
>> ops-directorate and gen-art). I'll start both sequences at the same 
>> time once I've heard from Alvaro.
>
> I¹ll go read it, but my gut reaction is that we should go back through 
> (WGLC, etc.).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>