Re: [Idr] Adoption and IPR call for draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-03.txt (8/16 to 8/30)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

*Hi Igor,*

We can see the solution to the problem differently, but I think any
> solution must not create additional problems.
> I`m not sure that with possible race conditions this solution doesn`t pose
> new problems with the processing of updates.
>

You are absolutely correct.

In the current draft (and previous versions) there is a lot of
undefined behaviour as to the processing incoming updates to receiving PE,
how it detects the "overflow", how does it select which RD, RTs or NHs to
use for signalling upstream etc ... While of course authors say this is
local implementation IMO this is crux of the solution.

Moreover if receiving PE is short on resources it may crash before
issuing any ORF msg in the first place.


*Hi Authors of this document, *

I have final question to you on this proposal.

Would you be willing to rewrite the draft such that the required behaviour
and protection can be run on Route Reflectors and not on receiving PEs ?

That way one hop ORF will easily reach the src PEs and the fire can be
locally extinguished  where it starts.

Further if needed to automate things further, receiving PE could push you
max number of routes it is both willing and expecting to accept on a per RT
basis via simple extension to existing protocol.

Kind regards,
Robert.