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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Wei,

I just want to highlight one important principle in respect to your point
#1 about the new quota which I believe was not observed so far during this
discussion and this is a very important change.

*In BGP based LxVPNs architecture when you provision and delete a VPN site
or a VRF you are not required to touch configuration of any other node in
the network other than your immediately adjacent PE. *

Your quota violates this principle completely by requiring you to modify
the <RD,src PE> value or even if the value remains the same to add such
<RD,src PE> pair to the list on each remote PE when you add new VRF or new
sites to existing VPNs.

Regards,
Robert


On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:03 PM Wei Wang <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
>     The updated draft is the fruit of previous intense discussions, we
> have analyzed various possible situations. Let me explain some major
> concerns again:
>
>
> 1) About the quota:
>    Actually, the quota is not exist in the original version, but we found
> there are some problems during the discussions in the mailing list. So, we
> add the quota to improve the drop strategies after the VPN Prefix ORF
> mechanism is triggered. We can't drop all the routes(from all sources)
> belong to the VPNs when the VRF limit is exceed because one of the rogue PE.
>     The reason that quota is set for every PE is that in real network the
> number of customer routes in each VPN under different PEs may be different.
> So, the quota value should be set depend on the customer scale.
>    For more information about quota, I think you can refer the discussion:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uoQO8vqSA82UCrfXppFjwNbMg1A/
>
>