Hi Alia, Alia Atlas:
In Sec 2,2, it says: "This implies that when propagating routes into a VRF, the ACCEPT_OWN community should not be propagated. Likewise, if a route carrying the ACCEPT_OWN community is received in an address family which does not allow the source VRF to be looked up, the ACCEPT_OWN community MUST be discarded."In the first sentence above, it seems like the "should not" should be either "SHOULD NOT" or "MUST NOT". Is there a reason that the text is descriptive instead of normative?
A possible reason to choose to use descriptive text is that the propagation of a route into a VRF is a purely local matter. A specific implementation might have specific reasons not to discard the community at this step, and, as long as the attribute is discarded before being re-advertized to a VRF CE BGP neighbor, this is fine. I think your concern is valid since no text makes this mandatory.
I would suggest keeping the first sentence as is, but modify the second sentence to cover route advertisement additionally to reception.
OLD: Likewise, if a route carrying the ACCEPT_OWN community is received in an address family which does not allow the source VRF to be looked up, the ACCEPT_OWN community MUST be discarded. proposed NEW: Likewise, if a route carrying the ACCEPT_OWN community is received or re-advertized in an address family which does not allow the source VRF to be looked up, the ACCEPT_OWN community MUST be discarded. Authors, do you agree ? -Thomas, as doc shepherd _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
