Thank you Ahmed for addressing the comments, Version 15 looks good to me.
BR, Ines On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 3:33 AM Ahmed Bashandy <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for the late reply > > See response inline #Ahmed. The response refers to version 15 which I just > published to address your comments as well as other reviewers' comments > > Thanks > > Ahmed > On 1/17/21 12:57 PM, Ines Robles via Datatracker wrote: > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review result: Ready with Nits > > This document proposes a hierarchical and shared forwarding chain > organization > that allows traffic to be restored to pre-calculated alternative equal cost > primary path or backup path in a time period that does not depend on the > number > of BGP prefixes. > > Comment/Question to the authors: > 1- In the document states: "The proposed technique achieves prefix independent > convergence while ensuring incremental deployment, complete automation, and > zero management and provisioning effort." What is the scope involved in zero > management? It would be nice if the text explains how the technique achieves > the zero management and the provisioning efforts. > > #Ahmed: I added the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph > in the introduction > > In other words, once it is implemented and deployed on a router, nothing > is required from the operator to make it work. > > > 2- "it benefits from all its > benefits" --> it would be nice to mention some of the benefits in brakets. > > #Ahmed I added > > (most notably convergence that does not depend in the number of prefixes) > > > 3- > Is this technique not affected by any type of bpg prefix hijacking attack? > > #Ahmed: AFAIK Prefix hijacking is a scenario whereby a peer advertises > reachability to a prefix that it does not own. What we propose is how to > make convergence independent of the number of prefix by organizing > forwarding plane data structure in a certain way. If a prefix is advertised > by peer "B" instead of peer "A", the FIB organization algorithm still > applies. > > 4- > If there is no privacy issues I would states that explicitly. > > #Ahmed: I am not really sure what do you mean by "privacy" in the context > of FIB? > > Thank you for this document, > > Ines. > > > > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
