On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 02:49:55PM +0000, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Thank you for your questions. > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 02:43:38PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > I would like to raise three points in respect to this draft: > >
.... > > 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 :) > > I agree that operators locally configure these limits and they > themselves choose to use no limits, pre-, post-, or a combination of > pre- + post- policy limits. > > This Internet-Draft seeks to document that both exist, and formulate > things in such a way that when a vendor claims compliance with > draft-sa-grow-maxprefix, they indicate to support all of outbound, > pre-policy inbound, and post-policy inbound. A vendor could also > indicate they only have support for "draft-sa-grow-maxprefix section 2.2 > type B", or only "type A". > > My recommendation to BGP implementers would be to implement all three > types of prefix limits. My recommendation to operators is to configure > both pre-policy and post-policy limits, as each limit has different > advantages in context of Internet routing. For BGP implementation having more then just one Loc-RIB implementing a post-policy check is more comples and the result will depend on which of the RIBs the count is done. For this reasons OpenBGPD only does pre-policy inbound limits and until now nobody ever complained about that being not good enough. -- :wq Claudio _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
