Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-08-25
Requested 2015-05-26
Authors Petr Lapukhov, Ariff Premji, Jon Mitchell
Draft last updated 2015-07-23
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -10 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Dan Romascanu
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Yoav Nir
Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Lionel Morand (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Danny McPherson (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Susan Hares 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-05-rtgdir-early-hares-2015-07-23
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2015-07-23


Jeff, Chris, Petr, Ariff, and Jon: 


This is a second routing directorate review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-05.  The rtgwg chairs asked me to provide my insights as a BGP person for many years.   



Status:  Publish after correcting a few BGP issues 



Great leaps forward from the Original document, and an interested document to read.



A few minor technical issues, 


Editorial issues: As the second reviewer, I did not focus on the editorial nits and errors.   The English could still be improved in many sections.  If the chairs wish me to pull out my scholarly red pen,  I will do so. 


Minor technical issues: 




P. 5 – ANYCAST and ECMP have been a fine idea for 8-10 years.



P. 10 – Your TRILL comments could use a bit more clarity. 


Here’s the facts 


2-a) TRILL (Huawei) and “early TRILL”  (Cisco, Brocade) – have been deployed in the Layers 2 design.  TRILL requires special forwarding (due to header), but there is a draft to use  TRILL over IP (   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-over-ip/) . 


The TRILL forwarding has had active-active added to its capability which deal with the broadcast/undefined multicast (BUM traffic).  


TRILL deployment make use of the proprietary directory services in order to reduce the BUM traffic or the IP/MAC look up traffic.   Five new drafts are heading toward the IESG that allow a standardized directory service (2 provide over-all designs for service, and 3 provide additions to standard trill). 


TRILL shares its OAM with the 802.1ag OAM so that the fault-management and performance management can utilize the automatic features design by 802.1. 




 solution may help your L2/L3 Design by providing a clear TRILL/Layer-3 gateway.  




Section 5.1 page 12 



“BGP deployment within an Autonomous system typically assumes the presence of an IGP for next-hop resolution” 


Here – BGP can run without an IGP by using the features of ARP/RARP and ND.   This feature has been true of BGP since 1987. 




P.AGE 13 “This meets REQ 3 and REQ 4.  It is worth mentioning”

I suspect you mean “This use of E-BGP meets REQ3 and REQ4.”


However, I could not tell and that’s important for the technology.





You should cross reference AS-Migration and other drafts that have “Remove-PRIVATE-AS” before sending out. 




Multipath-relax should be described in specific detail in a different document if you think is very useful (p. 20) 




Section 7.1 IDR drafts: 


, and 


 are proposing BFD/BGP interactions for Route-servers.  You should review this documents and link to these documents in your draft. 




Section 7.2 – You mention Add Paths in many section, but a lot of your problems might be solved with Add-Paths and a guideline on how to reduce the FIB.   One way to also aid Add-Paths is to allow for custom cost community to be added at certain points.  You do not consider this option. 



Sue Hares