Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf

Hi Acee,

I can understand the situation. I think the text in the current draft is also good.
I think this may be a check point for a future XXIE certification☺

Thanks,
Shunwan

From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 7:57 AM
To: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>
Cc: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; lsvr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf

On Jul 31, 2023, at 08:16, Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com<mailto:zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi Acee,

Thank you for your quick response. Yes, I understand that in BGP SPF, the traditional BGP decision process has been completely replaced.

Regarding the rule “3.  The NLRI received from the BGP SPF speaker with the numerically larger BGP Identifier is preferred.”, I think “the BGP SPF speaker with the numerically lower BGP Identifier is preferred” would also work well. And this is somewhat easy to understand, because RFC 4271 already has such an accepted rule.

We could have changed this a couple years ago but I don’t think that we want to change this now that we have implementations. Since we’ve replaced entire decision process, using the same tie-breaker doesn’t seem necessary.

Thanks,
Acee

Thanks,
Shunwan

From: Lsvr [mailto:lsvr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 7:35 PM
To: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:zhuangshunwan=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Cc: lsvr@ietf.org<mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf

Hi Shuwan,

On Jul 31, 2023, at 07:25, Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:zhuangshunwan=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

Hi Authors,

Thank you for contributing this useful document!

I think I missed some of the discussion information. I saw the following rule and was puzzled:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf/
6.1.  BGP SPF NLRI Selection
…
3.  The NLRI received from the BGP SPF speaker with the numerically
       larger BGP Identifier is preferred.
…

The above rule is contrary to the definition of RFC 4271. RFC 4271 defines the following:
“
9.1.2.2.  Breaking Ties (Phase 2)
…
f) Remove from consideration all routes other than the route that
         was advertised by the BGP speaker with the lowest BGP
         Identifier value.
”

My question is: why are the two rules not defined as the same style?

In BGP SPF, the traditional BGP decision process is completely replaced.

Thanks,
Acee

Thanks,
Shunwan
_______________________________________________
Lsvr mailing list
Lsvr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsvr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr