Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-sas-idr-maxprefix-inbound-02.txt

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Dear Robert,

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:16:12PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> I think I have one question or suggestion.

Your review is appreciated!

> As you all know some implementations allow you to explicitly force BGP
> speaker to keep (pre-policy) all routes/paths received.
> 
> Example:
> 
> neighbor 192.168.1.1 soft-reconfiguration inbound
> 
> The draft does not seem to comment on this case yet if implementation
> maintains the above behaviour at least some of the justifications for
> the document is gone.

Interesting, the draft's objective is to clarify that inbound limits can
be applied at multiple stages of the pipeline (pre and post policy), not
all Network Operating Systems appear to offer this (operationally
speaking much needed) granularity, and through this draft we hope to
clarify to implementers that it is something worth considering to add.

> I think that draft should at least mention such behaviour, not force to
> change it however put some light that if
> configured by the operator some of the benefits of inbound prefix limit
> will not be fully effective.

What you call 'soft-reconfiguration inbound' ends up storing into what
the draft refers to as 'Pre Policy'. (At least... that is the intention,
it is possible the text is readable to us but not easy to understand for
others)

Do you have specific text in mind to add to the draft to clarify this?

Kind regards,

Job