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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

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