Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-11

From: Jonathan Hardwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 01:18:33 -0700

Reviewer: Henning Rogge
Review result: Has Nits

Submitting on behalf of Henning Rogge:

Hi,

I was asked to do an early review of the i2rs-rib-info-model...

I liked the comprehensive approach describing the RIB, including tunnels,
multi-topology routing (by using multiple RIBs) and routing reactions (like
drop/icmp-error).

I found a few things in the draft that in my opinion need a bit more work...

First it seems that Section 2.3 (Route) is a bit out of sync with the BNF later
in the document, it should at least mention matching the source-IP address of
the IP headers.

Second (if I read the BNF in Section 6 correctly), the match for a route seems
to be one of the list "ip address, MPLS label, MAC address, interface". I think
it should be possible to combine "interface" or "mac address" with an IP
address to restrict the focus of a route, e.g. "match fe80::1 from interface X".

Last, I wonder if multicast routing needs more different types of matchers,
e.g. a match on the TTL of the IP packet to limit the range of a multicast
group.

There is also problem of multicast routing in MANETs (see RFC 6621) which can
use a hash-based duplicate detection to determine if it forwards or drops a
multicast packet. Would this be out of scope for the draft?

Henning Rogge

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:10:31 -0400

Jonathan: 

Please thank Henning for his review. 

Sue Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 4:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-11

Reviewer: Henning Rogge
Review result: Has Nits

Hi,

I liked the comprehensive approach describing the RIB, including tunnels, multi-topology routing (by using multiple RIBs) and routing reactions (like drop/icmp-error).

First it seems that Section 2.3 (Route) is a bit out of sync with the BNF later in the document, it should at least mention matching the source-IP address of the IP headers.

Second (if I read the BNF in Section 6 correctly), the match for a route seems to be one of the list "ip address, MPLS label, MAC address, interface". I think it should be possible to combine "interface" or "mac address" with an IP address to restrict the focus of a route, e.g. "match fe80::1 from interface X".

Last, I wonder if multicast routing needs more different types of matchers, e.g. a match on the TTL of the IP packet to limit the range of a multicast group.

There is also problem of multicast routing in MANETs (see RFC 6621) which can use a hash-based duplicate detection to determine if it forwards or drops a multicast packet. Would this be out of scope for the draft?

Henning Rogge