IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bgp-autoconf] assumptions

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 25 February 2020 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E543A14C6 for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:13:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6MVOrcCba0Ac for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2AA3A149C for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ECB21E2D3; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:19:40 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6A703233-75BE-4942-9880-841C6BFA2D81"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2eeuixxaa.wl-randy@psg.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:13:53 -0500
Cc: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, bgp autoconf <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <F9DF2BA0-3980-488E-B10B-B8E57C804DAB@pfrc.org>
References: <m2v9nvxsc6.wl-randy@psg.com> <3fc500dc7cdd4df2967ad51efdb5cf29@huawei.com> <m2eeuixxaa.wl-randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bgp-autoconf/2AGG0qz2QtF-oh5PxGNYfX9_Cd4>
Subject: Re: [Bgp-autoconf] assumptions
X-BeenThere: bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP autoconfiguration design team discussion list <bgp-autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bgp-autoconf>, <mailto:bgp-autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bgp-autoconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bgp-autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bgp-autoconf>, <mailto:bgp-autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:13:56 -0000


> On Feb 25, 2020, at 2:49 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> 
> hi jie,
> 
>>>  o we are not changing bgp
>> [Jie] Not sure we discussed this during the conference call or not.
> 
> actually, i made the assertion three times.  there was no response.
> so i have made it again :)

Actually, I had commented on the possible need to push some of this stuff into BGP depending on where we drew our lines on some of the layering.

I'd like to avoid unnecessary changes.  I'm not willing to rule them out.

I believe that sticking with as close to base BGP as possible is a feature: It means that auto-discovery features can be lightly strapped on top of boring BGP implementations that have modest support for programmatic neighbor setup.

-- Jeff

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email