Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Short comparison of the different documents.

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
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 E2F443A0DA4 for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 Gfcc4tDWzVXZ for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4966A3A0D98 for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 9BD84A4821CFBFF9A499 for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:34:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.98) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:34:47 +0000
Received: from dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.100) by dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:34:45 +0800
Received: from dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.48.231]) by dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.48.231]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:34:45 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
CC: "bgp-autoconf@ietf.org" <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bgp-autoconf] Short comparison of the different documents.
Thread-Index: AQHV70I9lASDS4RPqUWxt+vZ2IYdwqg4ffOAgAy5yPA=
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:34:45 +0000
Message-ID: <fd21d65cfa0f46b9a02dba4048bc260d@huawei.com>
References: <CAHw9_i+0rDUJOR3mAMAh9+whaKX0Koc_VaibbfX1zRzocOAvhw@mail.gmail.com> <20200304220727.GC32422@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200304220727.GC32422@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.175.217]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bgp-autoconf/a9ZlncDmWAGXo2GEYC4jiGuSN4g>
Subject: Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Short comparison of the different documents.
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:34:52 -0000

Hi Jeff, Warren and all,

Based on your discussion, it seems both of you agree with the requirement to advertise the role of a router to its peer. 

I'd like to check whether other design team members also agree with this? If there is rough consensus, we probably could add it to the common requirement list. 

As for the message size, IMO it may not be a big problem if a message is only for BGP auto-discovery, while if the protocol or message is shared with other applications, it may become large and can require some additional functionality to handle it. So yes we need to take this into consideration, but it may not be applicable to all candidate solutions. 

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bgp-autoconf [mailto:bgp-autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Jeffrey Haas
> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 6:07 AM
> To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
> Cc: bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Short comparison of the different documents.
> 
> Warren,
> 
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 03:52:14PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > 4: BGP LLDP Peer Discovery - draft-acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery
> > ------------------
> > This seems like a very good option to me -- LLDP is a well-known, well
> > implemented protocol. It also already carries information which solves
> > much of the "auditability" (are the cables right?) use-case.
> > I am concerned about the possible message size limits
> 
> The size consideration is valid.  It does mean that if we end up with a large bit
> of configuration blob that baseline LLDP is no longer suitable.
> 
> There is work going on in IEEE that will permit larger stuff for LLDP.
> But for purposes of our analysis I don't think we are specifically hung up on
> that expectation.
> 
> > The document does still need work -  e.g it talks about Session
> > Group-IDs, but is very handwavey about what they are / what you do
> > with them.
> 
> This was intentional. :-)  Much like "color" or "tag" or "community", we have
> situations where we want to tag a bit of discovery in a way that flexibly allows
> the deployment to decide what things mean.
> 
> Easy examples of this was role in a switching fabric.
> 
> I think for purposes of our analysis, the property I'd prefer to highlight is that
> discovery information may carry a way of marking that information for
> purposes of letting listeners do something useful.  This markup may carry
> non-standardized code points.  We may wish to design standardized code
> points as well for specific profiles, for example fabrics.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> --
> Bgp-autoconf mailing list
> Bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bgp-autoconf