-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
F3-CAR-Issue-3: Handling of LCM and Extended Communities #3
Comments
Section 2.9.3 is updated to use LCM-EC color when present for route validation, resolution and AIGP. |
F3-CAR-Issue 3: Handling of LCM and Extended Communities Shepherd Comment: The text that is changed is below in bold: When a CAR route crosses the originator's color domain boundary, LCM- An implementation SHOULD NOT send more than one instance of the LCM- If present, LCM-EC is the effective intent of a BGP CAR route. LCM-EC Color is used instead of the Color in CAR route NLRI for The new section 2.10 is a nice addition to the CAR draft. Please verify that the following pairing in that text is accurate:
After you finish the IDR Review of F3-CAR-Issue-2, you may want to go on to cover this issue before F3-CAR-Issue-3 in a specific all. This issue is not resolved until you complete the IDR WG mail call of your issues. |
This issue needs to be re-opened. |
#3 Section 2.9.3 is updated to use LCM-EC color when present for route validation, resolution and AIGP. Section 2.10 is added to explicitly state LCM-EC and BGP Color EC usage.
Sue will re-read new section 2.10 for answering question F3-CAR-Issue-3. (Thursday night). DJ and Swadesh consider adding a comment that points to RFC9012 color not being used. |
Error handling in section 2.9.2.2 This TLV provides the equivalent functionality as Label-Index TLV of Editor's comments: If so, please indicate this at this point. |
Section 2.10 refers to sections B.2, 2.5, 2.8, and B.3. Section 2.5 refers to section A.3.2. Section 2.8 refers to Appendix B. All of these sections were reviewed in the review of section 2.10. Section 2.10 It is "Color-EC C3" or LCM-EC C3",? The color is on:
It the Color-EC C3 applied by local policy in mapping to the transport? I'm having trouble mapping this text to the example in B.3. |
Sue's note. I'll re-read sections 2.10, B.2, 2.5, 2.8, and B.3 again on Monday (6/5) prior to our chat. |
The text above refers to a combination case where both LCM-EC and Color-EC are present on a CAR route. The behavior is a combination of examples in Appendix B.2 and B.3. As described in Appendix B.2, the next-hop color (C3 in above text) may be mapped by local policy on an ingress BR within color domain D2, or by attaching the Color-EC at an egress BR within color domain D2. Note: |
Editorial: Appendix.B.3 - lacks the link. Since the example comes from sections B.2 and B.3, I was trying to determine how to indicate this fact to the readers of the text. Do you have any suggestions? |
#3 updated text indicating applicability of both appendix B.2 and B.33.
I consider this issue ready for external review. |
Comment/clarification were addressed in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02. After that WG has been polled with WGLC and no further comments have been raised. |
-Appendix B.2 should be clarified after F3-CAR-Issue-2 has been expanded to include:
>CAR Sections 1.1 needs indicate that local BGP policy can customize or adjust the route validation (section 2.4), route resolution (2.5), and AIGP (2.6).
>Section 2.10 should cover any issues regarding conflicts caused by local policy.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: