Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Progress report of design team on IDR virtual meeting

Hi Robert,

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I see you used the words “out of scope of pure and simple auto discovery”, does it mean that the capability as described in Randy’s text should be entirely out of scope of BGP auto discovery, or it could be an optional capability of BGP auto discovery?

I understand your concern about possible overloading of such vehicle, which could be discussed further with the WG, while at current stage we are discussing whether such capability is needed or not in BGP auto discovery.

For attributes which needs to be transitive, I agree that there are more suitable mechanisms to carry them.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:robert@raszuk.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 6:48 AM
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Progress report of design team on IDR virtual meeting

All,

I completely agree with Randy on this part:

" None of these example attributes are requirements, will be specified, given code points, etc. in the protocol design."

On the rest I would actually go even further and say that such things should be out of scope of pure and simple auto discovery.

Reason being that once you open a trunk - even if originally empty or containing only spare tire - folks will load it with junk beyond imagination making the interop nightmare, opportunity to keep old mantra alive fix one bug intro two etc ...

And as I said in the other note - some of this stuff being proposed should be transitive and IMHO belongs in BGP not in autodiscovery.

Thx

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:38 PM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote:
jimmy,

my apologies for my poor communication.  let me try with text

  Two prospective peers SHOULD be able to exchange arbitrary attributes
  to communicate things such as position or role in a topology, link
  speeds and/or loading, preferred time of day, favorite ice cream, etc.
  None of these example attributes are requirements, will be specified,
  given code points, etc. in the protocol design.  But there SHOULD be a
  protocol provision for communicating arbitrary attributes so that the
  operator may configure as needed for their environment.

hope that helps.

randy

--
Bgp-autoconf mailing list
Bgp-autoconf@ietf.org<mailto:Bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bgp-autoconf