Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-21
review-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-21-opsdir-early-romascanu-2020-12-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-21
Requested revision 21 (document currently at 28)
Type Early Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2020-12-07
Requested 2020-11-12
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Robert Raszuk , Bruno Decraene , Christian Cassar , Erik Aman , Kevin Wang
I-D last updated 2020-12-03
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -11 by Daniele Ceccarelli (diff)
Secdir Early review of -21 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -21 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -21 by Daniele Ceccarelli (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/N_sd6fhhdMhfQMPW7MjyQiXEjVY
Reviewed revision 21 (document currently at 28)
Result Has issues
Completed 2020-12-03
review-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-21-opsdir-early-romascanu-2020-12-03-00
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)?