[Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-21
Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 03 December 2020 10:42 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 6E8C23A0E5D; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 02:42:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, dromasca@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <160699217439.12968.15167518753403970194@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 02:42:54 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zddpCgW1FxSrBcujyDTcfabRNXw>
Subject: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-21
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: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 10:42:55 -0000
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review result: Has Issues This document defines an extension to BGP route reflectors by which BGP route selection is modified in order to choose the best path for their clients standpoint, rather than from the route reflectors standpoint. The Introduction includes text that describes in what situations these extensions are applicable. >From the operators perspective, Section 4 and Section 6 includes important recommendations for SP operators, as well as deployment considerations. The document is Almost Ready from an OPS perspective. I would suggest however to clarify the following two issues before approval: 1. In Section 3: > Both modifications rely upon all route reflectors learning all paths that are eligible for consideration. In order to satisfy this requirement, path diversity enhancing mechanisms such as add-path may need to be deployed between route reflectors. What are the consequences of this condition not being met? Are there any requirements or recommendations for operators in deployment? Some clarification text would be useful, did I miss something? 2. In Section 3.1: > In addition to the change specified in [RFC4456] section 9, the BGP Decision Process Tie Breaking rules ([RFC4271] Sect. 9.1.2.2) are modified as follows. Should not the document UPDATE RFC 4271 (when approved)?
- [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-o… Dan Romascanu via Datatracker
- Re: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-b… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-b… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-b… Dan Romascanu
- Re: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-b… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-b… Dan Romascanu