Subject: [i2rs] The I2RS WG has placed draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 02:58:01 -0700

The I2RS WG has placed draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model in state 
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Susan Hares)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model/

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:52:36 -0400

I have looked at
ttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-bnp-eca-data-model/
and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model/

In general, I am comfortable with the WG adopting these documents.  I 
think there is one important issue that needs to be addressed, 
preferably in conjunction with adoption.  the issue as two related parts.

The primary issue is the interaction between these policies and the 
operational RIB in the rotuer.  I suspect I know what the assumption of 
the wg is, but I could not find any text in the document.  It may be 
that I simply misssed it.  I was looking for something that said "all 
packets which do not match any policy filter are passed on to the RIB."

Related to this, I think the text needs to note that the I2RS priority 
scheme does not help for conflicts between I2RS policy forwarding 
entries and I2RS RIB entries.  The policy entries will apply first, even 
if the RIB entries have a higher priority.  I think this is an 
inevitable consequence of our deliberate (and I personally think 
sensible) choice to not deal with indirect conflicts in the protocol.  I 
do think the document should not this effect explicitly.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 11:19:25 -0400

Joel: 

The FB-RIB draft contains the pointer.  For the I2RS case there is no match
in FB-RIB, it goes to the default RIB linked to the I2RS FB-RIB for
forwarding.  If that RIB contains 0/0, it will forward all traffic.  If the
RIB does not contain a match, it will drop the traffic.   

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 8:53 AM
To: IETF Secretariat; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Calls for adoption of policy drafts.

I have looked at

In general, I am comfortable with the WG adopting these documents.  I think
there is one important issue that needs to be addressed, preferably in
conjunction with adoption.  the issue as two related parts.

The primary issue is the interaction between these policies and the
operational RIB in the rotuer.  I suspect I know what the assumption of the
wg is, but I could not find any text in the document.  It may be that I
simply misssed it.  I was looking for something that said "all packets which
do not match any policy filter are passed on to the RIB."

Related to this, I think the text needs to note that the I2RS priority
scheme does not help for conflicts between I2RS policy forwarding entries
and I2RS RIB entries.  The policy entries will apply first, even if the RIB
entries have a higher priority.  I think this is an inevitable consequence
of our deliberate (and I personally think
sensible) choice to not deal with indirect conflicts in the protocol.  I do
think the document should not this effect explicitly.

Yours,
Joel

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs