[RTG-DIR] Second review of the draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-05
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 20 August 2015 01:07 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 368CE1A8AA6; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.054
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.054 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id es-2vu92jyjv; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web3.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B49D31A8AA4; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=174.124.218.207;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:07:01 -0400
Message-ID: <01c301d0dae4$862a9280$927fb780$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C4_01D0DAC2.FF1A7920"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdDa26Lg642x0bFiRs2m4f0+qjQwrg==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/oi5Roj62fIaNChpbg9yLT_59lGE>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Second review of the draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-05
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 01:07:16 -0000
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: 1) P. 5 - ANYCAST and ECMP have been a fine idea for 8-10 years. 2) 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. The <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-irb/> draft-ietf-trill-irb-06 solution may help your L2/L3 Design by providing a clear TRILL/Layer-3 gateway. 3) Section 5.1 page 12 a. "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. 4) 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. 5) You should cross reference AS-Migration and other drafts that have "Remove-PRIVATE-AS" before sending out. 6) Multipath-relax should be described in specific detail in a different document if you think is very useful (p. 20) 7) Section 7.1 IDR drafts: <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd/> draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-01, and <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jdurand-auto-bfd/> draft-jdurand-auto-bfd-00 are proposing BFD/BGP interactions for Route-servers. You should review this documents and link to these documents in your draft. 8) 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