[Idr] draft-sas-idr-maxprefix-inbound-05 provides a good solution for problems described draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Job, Melchior, and Massimiliano,

Your draft-sas-idr-maxprefix-inbound-05 can be good solution to problems described in Section 3.2 of the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement/
Most Cloud operators eBGP peering only supports limited number of routes from external entities. The maximum routes can exceeds the limit by the unintended Route Leaks by the peers, not properly aggregated routes, or other events.

When a Cloud GW (or BGP speaker) receives routes exceeding the threshold of the max routes limit but not yet exceeding the max limit, some routes should be allowed. For example,  unintended route leaks to Cloud GW might deserve being discarded, while the peer's own routes should still be allowed.  Can you add another option to your Section 2?


  *   When number of inbound routes reach a threshold (which is set lower than the actual Max Route Limit for the eBGP peer), discards new address prefixes whose AS paths is more than xx from the peer , while maintaining the BGP connection in Established state.

Is it reasonable to generate an in-band message to notify the peer of threshold crossing?
Right not, only Cease Notification is generated. It would be helpful to have notification messages when some routes are discarded.

Thanks, Linda Dunbar