Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-wang-idr-vpn-routes-control-analysis (was Re: rd-orf problem clarification at the local level)

From: Aijun Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 07:38:37 +0800

Hi, Robert:

RD only filter can fit some situations, but as also your considerations, there are situations that RD only information is ambiguous. We have considered such scenarios and are considering to include RT information within the current RD-ORF semantic.
Then, even for Issue 1 as Jeff summarized, the Prefix-ORF is not suitable.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Feb 27, 2021, at 07:27, Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>>     Gyan> The major caveat with Prefix ORF is if the number of prefixes is a high order of magnitude would make it not feasible such as a 100k route flood.  Since the RD ORF is meant to mitigate the overflow PE the use case would always be a very high number of prefixes that could cause resources exhaustion.
> 
> RD is nothing else then /64 prefix. 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr