[Idr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-24: (with COMMENT)
John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 14 June 2021 21:49 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0DF3A0EC3; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, shares@ndzh.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.32.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <162370739841.28661.8062805903038751668@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:49:58 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mBEsRhGmDSjY-rmhsSBhGAoA-Pk>
Subject: [Idr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-24: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 21:50:08 -0000
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-24: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm glad to see this draft moving forward! I have some comments below, I hope they're helpful. 1. Introduction [RFC4456] asserts that, because the IGP cost to a given point in the network will vary across routers, "the route reflection approach may not yield the same route selection result as that of the full IBGP mesh approach." One practical implication of this assertion is that Strictly speaking, it’s not an implication of the assertion, it’s an implication of the fact (that is being asserted). So, "... practical implication of this fact is that..." (or just "... implication of this is..."). 2. Section 3.1 One or more backup IGP locations SHOULD be allowed to be specified for redundancy. Doesn’t this depend entirely on what option is chosen, of the three you’ve offered? They are, “per route reflector basis, per set of clients, or per client basis”. In the per client case, what would you use for a backup IGP location? When would you invoke the backup? (I’m imagining that the per-client case would generally use the client’s position in the IGP topology, in fact I imagine most implementations wouldn't force you to configure the IGP location when doing per-client.) This sentence would also benefit from a forward reference to the additional discussion in Section 4, IMO. 3. Section 3.1.1 I don’t think “BGP prefix” is a term of art, especially not as you’re using it. I think “BGP route” would be better. 4. Section 3.2 The third paragraph talks about applying different policies. While it’s accurate, it’s a bit sparse. It’s very similar to what’s discussed in RFC 7947 Section 2.3, and especially Section 2.3.2.1. Might be worth informatively referencing that? 5. Section 4 When you write “hop-by-hop switching“, I think you mean forwarding, not switching, right? Modifying the IGP location of BGP ORR does not interfere with policies enforced before IGP tie-breaking (step e) in the BGP Decision Process Route. That last word “Route” doesn’t need to be there. (both should be equal to the [RFC4456] ones) Both *what* should be equal to the RFC4456 one *what*? Confused.
- [Idr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-i… John Scudder via Datatracker
- Re: [Idr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ie… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ie… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ie… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ie… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ie… Robert Raszuk