Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

[Wei Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Susan and All:


    As co-author of this draft, I support the adoption.
    My consider about this draft is as follows:



1)      Will this new ORF filter reduce routing information at key points?

[Wei] Yes, this mechanism can filter the overwhelming VPN routes based on RD, to protect the existing services.




2)      Should the WG consider this draft given it has an IPR claim or

    [Wei] Yes.

  Would the IDR WG prefer another approach?

 [Wei] We welcome IDR experts give more comments to improve the solution 




3)      Is this draft ready to be adopted and refined as WG draft?

[Wei] Yes.




Best Regards,

Wei Wang

China Telecom






From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]&gt; On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:38 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)



&nbsp;

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (from 2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021) 

&nbsp;

This draft defines a new Outbound Route Filter (ORF) type, called the

Route Distinguisher ORF (RD-ORF).&nbsp; RD-ORF is applicable when the

routers do not exchange VPN routing information directly (e.g.

routers in single-domain connect via Route Reflector, or routers in

Option B/Option AB/Option C cross-domain scenario).

&nbsp;

Please be aware that this draft has one IPR statement attached. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4579/..
&nbsp;

Please consider the following questions in your review and comments: 

&nbsp;

1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Will this new ORF filter reduce routing information at key points? 

&nbsp;

2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Should the WG consider this draft given it has an IPR claim or 

Would the IDR WG prefer another approach? 

&nbsp;

3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Is this draft ready to be adopted and refined as WG draft? 

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Cheerily, Susan Hares 

&nbsp;

&nbsp;