Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Move forward with bgp autoconf requirements and design principle

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Randy and all,

It is good we agreed on the scope of this document is DC. Certainly in the design team we can analyze and discuss the difference between the design for DC and WAN, my understanding is the details about it does not belong to this document.

Coming back to the preparation of the draft deliverable, in addition to revising the existing text in the draft, my suggestion is to also add some brief description about each candidate solution regarding the functions, extensibility, etc., this may be similar to what was presented in the slides to the WG in last IETF meeting. I will work on some text and provide an update tomorrow. Any contribution to this is welcome.

As for the design principle (including which layer the protocol should be based on and the interaction with BGP), if we cannot reach agreement before the meeting, probably we could provide a summary of the considerations first, and ask for some feedbacks from the WG. Thoughts? 

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:53 PM
> To: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Move forward with bgp autoconf requirements
> and design principle
> 
> > The draft in question specifically adds WAN auto conf.
> 
> that was certainly not the intent; and it's not really there in the words.  on
> the other hand, if we should keep an eye on the WAN as we design the LAN,
> we should be aware of choices which might unnecessarily restriict ourselves
> next year.
> 
> > Then the L3 peer auto discovery is just deferred to
> > draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl
> 
> also not intended.  i did ask for your help stitching multicast in, and you
> declined.  perhaps you have time now.
> 
> > However reading thorough draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl it is clear that it is
> > not applicable to WAN.
> 
> it is not applicable to many things :)
> 
> as i said at the beginning, i do not think l3dl is really a serious candidate here.
> otoh, we would be silly if we did not keep an eye to see if there are lessons to
> be learned from it.
> 
> [ fwiw, i think the scalability added to lsoe to become l3dl was not
>   worth the complexity.  but that is a discussion for another universe ]
> 
> randy