Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)

["UTTARO, JAMES" <[e-mail]>]

The benefit of this proposal is that a CV schema does not have be created to match on prefixes on a target node.  The following text seems to imply that “manual configuration” will be required on a frequent basis. As per the text:

“Another possible approach is to configure, on each router, a
   community and the corresponding policies to match the community to
   determine whether to accept the received routes or not.  Such
   mechanism relies on manual configuration thus is considered error-
   prone.”

It would seem that the CV scheme would be put in place for the AFI/SAFI of interest once. What am I missing here? Is this proposal intended to create dynamic overlays controlling the importation of routes of interest?

RR and PE functionality are clear, what about when PE/RR functionality are on the same node. Although this is not desired there are cases where this occurs. Pls detail the behavior? Does a node have to know what it is? From the text it seems so..

Thanks,
          Jim Uttaro


From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Chengli
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 7:41 AM
To: Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; idr <[e-mail]>
Cc: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)


I support the adoption after reading the draft.  The mechanism to steer BGP route distribution to particular BGP nodes is useful in some use cases.

Thanks,
Cheng




From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Chongfeng Xie
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 5:49 PM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)


Hi，folks,
      I support the adoption of this document.  The mechanism in this document is useful for the distribution of BGP routes which are targeted to a subset of nodes.

Best regards
Chongfeng



From: Susan Hares<mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: 2022-09-28 01:30
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
CC: Dongjie (Jimmy)<mailto:[e-mail]>; Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)<mailto:[e-mail]>; Zhuangshunwan<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)
This begins a 2 week WG adoption and IPR call for draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm/__;!!BhdT!jNyS0ABNLzcDVZWOXk_95d4rIGwENFkS72-xxrN7UbdFV9doUnMNWTVcNdMnhtbb6KtrUfdPfU4jgrYtwO3wuA2gduk$>

The authors should respond to this email with an IPR statement.

The WG should consider in their discussion:
1) Will this new  transitive extended community help
in operational networks?

2) What conflicts does this new Extended Community have
with other functions in general BGP route distribution or
VPNs (EVPN, IPVPN)?

3) do you have any concern about the text in the draft?

Cheerily, Sue