Re: [Idr] BGP Auto-Discovery Protocol State Requirements

Jeffrey Haas <> Tue, 23 March 2021 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274083A129C for <>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b5BoH0JseClX for <>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384BC3A129E for <>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EFA981E447; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:02:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:02:51 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
To: Robert Raszuk <>
Cc: "Fomin, Sergey (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <>, "" <>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP Auto-Discovery Protocol State Requirements
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:41:16 -0000


On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 04:18:47PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> While actually I tend to agree with some of your comments I think they are
> only valid if we are really talking about "high scales".
> "High" in the context of BGP.  (Which to me means at least 1000s)
> So tell me (and all of us here) where in the DC fabric you see this high
> scale especially if we are only talking here about underlay (as draft
> says).

Thanks for confirming that you agree this may be an issue for higher scale.

The scope from the draft remains the same:

: 2.1.  Problem Scope
:    The current target environment is BGP as used for the underlay
:    routing protocol in data center networks.  Other scenarios may be
:    considered as part of the analysis for this work, but work on those
:    environments will be deferred to other efforts.

> And that is why IMHO unless we clearly state the scope of this work (for
> example to limit it to peers connected on the same L2 link - same L3 subnet
> - no over the top transport, directly connected ebgp, ebgp between
> loopbacks, no ibgp etc ... ) then I am afraid we will keep a bit of
> ping-pong here as each person's view may be in fact correct in the specific
> deployment scenario one has in mind for the new functionality under
> discussion. Except that the deployment scenarios are very different.

The position I have been taking is figuring out what is required for BGP
auto-configuration.  Data center is the specific scenario we are solving for
right now.  The working group may take on non-data center cases as future
work.  The analysis discussion is being used to refine what state is
required for each of the scenarios.

-- Jeff