search

ietf-wg-idr / draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct

1 stars 2 forks source link

Section 7.2 #47

Closed suehares closed 8 months ago

suehares commented 9 months ago

Jon Hardwick comment in RTG-DIR Review 7.2 Originating Classful Transport Routes

  Alternatively, the ingress node may advertise this tunnel
  destination into BGP as a Classful Transport family route with
  NLRI RD:EP, attaching a Transport Class Route Target that
  identifies the Transport Class.  This BGP CT route is advertised
  to EBGP peers and IBGP peers in neighboring domains.

I don't follow this paragraph. Why would the ingress node advertise it - which ingress node? Or is that a typo - should it be egress node? In which case I don't understand the distinction between this paragraph and the one that precedes it.

suehares commented 9 months ago

Kaliraj response to Jon It is actually an ingress node for a tunnel, that is also a BGP CT ASBR/ABR, that advertises the tunnel to adjacent BGP domains.

I will try to add some text clarifying this.

suehares commented 9 months ago

Keyur's comment on Section 7.2 Section 7.2.

this route SHOULD NOT be advertised to the IBGP core that contains the tunnel, using policy configuration. Impact of not prohibiting such advertisements is outside the scope of this document. #Keyur: I am assuming this line has an exception to a RR and Confeds?
kalirajv commented 9 months ago

KV> No, it doesn’t exclude RR-peers/IBGP-peers-in-Confed. Basically, Tunnels in a domain need to be exported out in BGP to other adjacent domains only, not the same domain that contains the tunnel.

kalirajv commented 8 months ago

Clarified text, stating explicitly that the BN is a ASBR/ABR. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-22#section-7.2