Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-11
Requested rev. 11 (document currently at 14)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-07-31
Requested 2017-07-17
Requested by Susan Hares
Other Reviews Rtgdir Early review of -08 by Ravi Singh (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -12 by Mahesh Jethanandani (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Peter Yee
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Paul Wouters
Please review this as a final QA review after WG LC and before publication.  This document should be check to see it abides with the current guidelines for a data model under the revised data store guidelines.
Review State Completed
Reviewer Henning Rogge
Review review-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-11-rtgdir-early-rogge-2017-08-01
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/a2FFNDdZz4zNnAfFdg3vyAkQTow
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 14)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2017-08-01
Review completed: 2017-08-01


Submitting on behalf of Henning Rogge:


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