All, I would like to raise three points in respect to this draft:
Point 1: The topic of outbound prefix limit is not new :) It has been discussed number of times within vendors and between vendors. But one requirement when we are talking about outbound prefix limit is which prefixes should be sent first - which are more important then others - so prefix prioritization in update generation and update scheduling comes up. Are we sure that this is not going to happen here ? Sure not in this draft, but once you build the road emergency vehicles and regular vehicles will try to use it. And while outbound prefix limit looks innocent the moment we start to ask for prioritizing prefixes some bgp implementations may have a bit of hard time. Point 2: The draft is still silent on the question I posted to the list regarding this idea in respect to decision which limit is more important ? Locally configured outbound limit or pushed by prefix limit ORF peers inbound limit ? What should be the action of the sender when those two numbers are not equal ? I think this must be precisely spelled out here. Point 3: For inbound prefix limit the position if this should be pre or post policy should be IMHO a local configuration decision. See if I decide to keep full table in my Adj_RIB_In maybe just for BMP use no spec should prevent that. Maybe it would be worth to add this explicitly to the draft in addition to listing those two measurement insertion locations :) Many thx Robert On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:00 PM Melchior Aelmans <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi WG, > > We would like to request WG adoption for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sa-grow-maxprefix/ > > Thanks, > Melchior > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
