Re: [Idr] Clarifications on draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Ketan,

I understand the objective and the current text do satisfy the objective. What I point out is the issue the objective has and the current text should be refined.

suppose a  RR has 100 peers, and 10 SR policies are to be configured on each peer. Follow the current text, RR will reflect 1000 SR policies to each peer and only 1% is needed. 



Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li

[e-mail]
 
From: Ketan Talaulikar
Date: 2023-04-06 18:29
To: [e-mail]
CC: draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy.authors; [e-mail]; idr-ads; idr-chairs
Subject: Re: Clarifications on draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
Hi Zhenqiang Li,

The objective was not to change the base BGP decision process or the BGP propagation rules for this SAFI. I hope that explains the current text.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 1:53 PM [e-mail] <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hello authors and all,

Hope it is not too late to make clarifications on this draft. 

This draft says one or more IPv4 address format route target extended community attached to the SR Policy advertisement and that indicates the intended headend of such an SR Policy advertisement.
And a BGP node advertises a received SR Policy NLRI to its IBGP neighbors according to normal IBGP propagation rules. 

Here a BGP node can be a RR(Route Reflector) which will reflect all the SR Policies to its IBGP peers regardless of the route target attached to the policies. So the IBGP peer node as the headend will receive lots of policies that are not intended for it because those policies have no route target that indicates the received peer node. 

In my opinion, the rules for RR to reflect SR policy with route target SHOULD be enhanced. RR SHOULD reflect related policies to relevant peers according to the route target attached to the policies.



Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li

[e-mail]