Re: [Dcrouting] [Lsvr] A comment on draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-spf

Hi guys,

Yes, normally. Now, I guess the question that we have on our table
is: what fundamental problem has been identified to trigger the proposed 
solution? No?

Cheers,
mh

Le 2018-01-05 21:09, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang a écrit :
> Today there are well defined (perhaps vendor-specific) procedures to
> choose if an OSPF route or a BGP route is used for a particular
> prefix. I assume if we treat BGP-SPF as a another protocol, then the
> problems is solved already?
> 
> Jeffrey
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 12:39 PM
>> To: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; EXT - randy 
>> <randy@psg.com>;
>> Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
>> Cc: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>; dcrouting@ietf.org; lsvr@ietf.org;
>> Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Dcrouting] [Lsvr] A comment on 
>> draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-spf
>> 
>> Hi Joel,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yes - this is one of the areas of complexity when implementing BGP 
>> SPF. It
>> 
>> is the reason why we allocate a separate SAFI from normal BGP-LS state
>> 
>> distribution.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Acee
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/3/18, 10:07 AM, "Dcrouting on behalf of Joel M. Halpern"
>> 
>> <dcrouting-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >It seems to me that having two different BGP decision processes
>> 
>> >available is going to have significant impact on achieving consistency
>> 
>> >so taht routing actually converges. I suspect it willnot take much to
>> 
>> >define what choices are stable and effective.
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> >Leaving out any comments on how to make this (coexistence) work seems a
>> 
>> >mistake.
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> >Yours,
>> 
>> >Joel
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> >On 1/3/18 7:40 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> 
>> >> Agreed. Thanks Randy!
>> 
>> >>
>> 
>> >> Plan to refresh the draft this week.
>> 
>> >>
>> 
>> >> Acee
>> 
>> >>
>> 
>> >> On 1/2/18, 10:21 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >>
>> 
>> >>>> Furthermore, we could chose to consider such an interaction as a
>> 
>> >>>> matter of local policy (implementation specific).
>> 
>> >>>
>> 
>> >>> pedantry: s/implementation/configuration/.  i.e. op chooses, not
>> 
>> >>>vendor.
>> 
>> >>>
>> 
>> >>> randy
>> 
>> >>
>> 
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> >> Dcrouting mailing list
>> 
>> >> Dcrouting@ietf.org
>> 
>> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_dcrouting&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuh
>> r6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
>> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
>> m=McIBlcLiNR1_v9Xp7j78qy127iH7R2ligpIRqY90OIU&s=_17xJYnJBWF_Rzk4scZ
>> 2p_3JsJiY5mknH-oXOsDVfn4&e=
>> 
>> >>
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> >_______________________________________________
>> 
>> >Dcrouting mailing list
>> 
>> >Dcrouting@ietf.org
>> 
>> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_dcrouting&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuh
>> r6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
>> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
>> m=McIBlcLiNR1_v9Xp7j78qy127iH7R2ligpIRqY90OIU&s=_17xJYnJBWF_Rzk4scZ
>> 2p_3JsJiY5mknH-oXOsDVfn4&e=
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dcrouting mailing list
> Dcrouting@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrouting