search

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

1 stars 2 forks source link

draft -23 section 7.7 route reflector procedural changes #60

Closed jhaas-pfrc closed 4 months ago

jhaas-pfrc commented 5 months ago

[This keeps getting mentioned, but due to lack of an issue has kept on getting dropped.]

Section 7.7 is a backdoor attempt to change BGP route reflection procedures.

While the procedural change may be desirable, the -ct document may not be appropriate to do so.

jhaas-pfrc commented 5 months ago

Note that the need for the discussion is motivated by scenarios such that route reflectors reset the next hop and force themselves to be in the forwarding path. This is not the general use case scenario for route reflection.

kalirajv commented 5 months ago

Jeff, we can separate it out to a separate draft, if Chairs see that as the best option.

I have been pondering over a few procedural questions, because of which I have been reluctant to take that step:

Can the Chairs clarify on these questions? accordingly I can start working on it.

The 'RR with nexthop-self' is an important required scenario in BGP-LU or BGP-CT ABR deployments. So I think we should put a reference to the text in draft-ct 7.7, even if separated out to a new draft.

suehares commented 5 months ago

Kaliraj:

On your questions, Keyur and I have noted about this section.

  1. Can you separate it out as a separate document – You should.

Let me see the text. Let’s start with the document being a WG document.

It inherits the same status of Experimental, but it can be moved from experimental as an individual document.

  1. Does it need to go through WG LC with the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6

I do not see why this section needs to be normative instead of informative. Let’s chat about this fact on Monday. If it is informative, there is no problem with misref. If it is normative, then misref can occur.

  1. As stated above, it start with experimental as a split. It can go to proposed if the WG agrees.
  2. See my comments above – I think informative. If Jeff has time, we’ll chat together.

Sue

From: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai @.> Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 4:18 PM To: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct @.> Cc: Susan Hares @.>; Assign @.> Subject: Re: [ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct] draft -23 section 7.7 route reflector procedural changes (Issue #60)

Jeff, we can separate it out to a separate draft, if Chairs see that as the best option. I have been pondering over a few procedural questions, because of which I have been reluctant to take that step External @.**@.>) Report This Emailhttps://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tL2FmOGM3ZTBkYmYwNjljMWM3ZmM3YmNkOGNkOTQ3YWRiLzE3MDcwODE1MTEuNDk=#key=a0dc88a34e7fb2e554d2be701783870b FAQhttps://www.godaddy.com/help/report-email-with-advanced-email-security-40813 GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKYhttps://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky

Jeff, we can separate it out to a separate draft, if Chairs see that as the best option.

I have been pondering over a few procedural questions, because of which I have been reluctant to take that step:

Can the Chairs clarify on these questions? accordingly I can start working on it.

The 'RR with nexthop-self' is an important required scenario in BGP-LU or BGP-CT ABR deployments. So I think we should put a reference to the text in draft-ct 7.7, even if separated out to a new draft.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=github.com&t=h.eJxNjsEOgyAQRH_F0GsR1qiIJ38FFlDSVg2sadKm_1710t52JjNv5822dGd9wSaiNfdCjJGmzZa4PET0FPhz5NEl4ZIJxE9nl9yOK0cSMefNZ9HKy3ntpYefiYOuGg2qqoFdC3Y78LOnJY0gm67VUIk8meTzMLvXdL4yoUPlpbNBthoBVUBl0XXodK2MswKUVLKDBqCs9UH1J3WhGCIaisuch9_0I-COwJ_1-QJLtEqm.MEYCIQCNSUxliiP64eZY0iTm9mStKKh0n2_nNwTI202kD4UvdgIhANyHDn2rdiy5-oP-hun_w1Eq10FqsDg9seUT1GTOFLRg, or unsubscribehttps://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=github.com&t=h.eJxNkL1ugzAAhF8lYm5jjAmGTCEQCgJC-YkdumEbAmoLFTZLq757RZbmxtPp0939aMv8oe03Wq_Ul9wDcBtUv7Atnz7BOKmhG3ijhmmUYBnlwiSfB9Y-N4vqgXu0aFAkFXITiwS5FeV-5l39usAoDlzinYMytdxVR-_Nj0KPkjAy_DIlOY2uKEmJibIyqbKzQeMcvZ4JpTGqLmFaV2VakPBUV1laXF5O2tNGe19Ljq2a5hvUd7blQAPIvplbeRjFd38v3HQ2x60uWKdbDoccdxwzLmwuHBM3ggGIdazbcAfh1nRWanunPu48_B-wBsQaeLB-_wDbpl7F.MEYCIQCF5fGPNHtdCUoRbBryaX7PsP0unNeyXG4ER_NKPgqzzAIhALnZM2QqtutTQv24Mw4WdKBFqW4Ie6xMWXCpGVZXFffZ. You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: @.**@.>>

suehares commented 4 months ago

Closed - with the creation of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-01.

A new repository will be entered for this document