Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08.txt

Przemek,

and clearly states the behavior when both are missing (policy not
> accepted). Do you see a value in stating the behavior when both are
> present? Based on the above wording this would deem policy not acceptable
> and in consequence neither accepted locally not propagated down (must not
> accepted, not necessarily usable, in order to propagate as stated in the
> following section). Should it be clearly stated as erroneous condition?
>

Why ? IMO when both present is a valid case as RT can be used locally for
import as well. RT ext-community and NO_ADV community are pretty orthogonal
and serve different purposes.

4.2.4. Propagation of an SR Policy
>
> It seems that the original wording was referring to just BGP when
> addressing the default propagation. In the current version, there is a
> distinction between EBGP (do not propagate) and IBGP (propagate). What is
> the reason for such distinction?
>

Say when you are on RR suppressing IBGP would be a spec bug :).

Thx,
R.


>

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr