Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022) - Extended an Additional week to 10/18/2022

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

I am really not sure what BGP-LS has to do with this entire topic nor the
topic I inquired about below.

To the best of my understanding (while I saw one draft proposing it) BGP-LS
still/yet does not insert configuration to routing nodes.

Thx,
R.


On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:35 AM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:20:59AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > >
> > > The way I understand it by reading Jie's use case that this VRF scoped
> > > too. It could be nodes scoped and VRF scoped.
> > >
> > > My understanding was that this was a logical AND case in such
> > > circumstances.  Thus, a specific node for a specific VPN and would have
> > > route targets in addition to the node-target.
> > >
> >
> > As you know for many years we have been addressing such cases by
> allocating
> > a new RT. My point also already shared is that if the target node has
> 1000s
> > VRFs your granularity of logical AND of RT and NT is simply not
> sufficient.
>
> I won't dispute this point.  This is simply to queue the desired
> funtionality as part of the discussion for the solution.
>
> > In any case what was not discussed at all here is how that information on
> > what BGP_IDs to apply is communicated to sourcing nodes. It may very well
> > turn orders of magnitude easier to simply configure target nodes with a
> > required configuration as opposed to sending policy to source nodes and
> > modify the entire network to accommodate new auto filtering rules.
>
> You mean you're not already using BGP-LS as a general discovery layer
> interacting with your provisioning systems?
>
> Hm.
>
> -- Jeff
>