search

ietf-wg-idr / draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi

Repository for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi Issues
0 stars 0 forks source link

RTG-DIR Issue 4: Introduction (Section 1) in paragraph 12 #6

Closed suehares closed 3 months ago

suehares commented 4 months ago

RTG-DIR Issue 4: Introduction (Section 1) in paragraph 12

Text:/ An SR Policy intended only for the receiver will, in most cases, not traverse any Route Reflector (RR, [RFC4456])./

Jeffrey: Is the above paragraph correct/needed. I suppose in most cases they will traverse RR after all - whether it is from a controller or an egress PE.

suehares commented 3 months ago

RTG-DIR Issue 4 Status: resolved, closed

KT It is needed. RR is not required and not used in many deployments that I know of. It is a direct peering from controller to router. Jeffrey: OK if you say the most BGP deployment is not through RR 😊 How is further propagation prevented after the headend is reached?

KT: This is covered in section 4.2.3

Shepherd comment: Textin 4.2.3: /SR Policy NLRIs that have the NO_ADVERTISE community attached to them MUST NOT be propagated./

Perhaps the text could be modified as follows:
Text:/ An SR Policy intended only for the receiver will, in most cases, not traverse any Route Reflector (RR, [RFC4456]). (See section 4.2.3). /