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

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Linda,

Thanks for your review and comments. Please see some replies inline.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 10:21 PM
To: [e-mail]; Susan Hares <[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)

IDR WG,

I support the WG adoption with the following questions:

  *   How does the BGP speaker know all the target nodes? Is it via configuration?
[Jie] The set of targeted node can be obtained by either configuration, management plane or via some control plane mechanisms.


  *   Does the Node Target Extended Communities message include all the Target identifiers? Suppose one message is for 100 BGP nodes. Does the message need to include all the identifiers of the 100 nodes?
[Jie] Good question. With the mechanism in current document, all the target node IDs need to be included in the Update message. This is because the distribution of BGP based route policies is usually targeted at a small number of nodes.


  *   Will you consider adding the “Exclude target” option for a situation where only a small set of nodes is not TARGET?
[Jie] This depends on the use cases. So far we don’t see the need to add this functionality, but it can be a topic for future discussion.


Inserted below are my answers to the questions:

Cheers,
Linda Dunbar
From: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:30 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Zhuangshunwan <[e-mail]<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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C3d95b74570e64d649fe208daab7c14a7%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638010846671415327%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mhgvsvk6L4qNMhjU697kIoWko7BkN5z8FwGsTEJa%2ByE%3D&reserved=0>

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?

[Linda]  Yes.

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

[Linda] No

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

[Linda] see the questions I have about the draft above.

Cheerily, Sue