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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 23 March 2021 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274083A129C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b5BoH0JseClX for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384BC3A129E for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (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 <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "Fomin, Sergey (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <sergey.fomin@nokia.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210323160251.GE31047@pfrc.org>
References: <20210319143448.GM29692@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMFKqpZCyzDbGr0JzZLu7sjEw9NBQ=J9rTqDOuP+Yf1mog@mail.gmail.com> <20210319144657.GO29692@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MME8GB4jo_q3kHm1jx6E60GCHeU-pz0eYy_96BJ+ak7_Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20210319152832.GP29692@pfrc.org> <BYAPR08MB549328E3379E94589DC3CE0885649@BYAPR08MB5493.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20210323120515.GA31047@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMGY+sMHr29Uw4bFct9kxoBnp=fJDULVjvFQL1UxC3JYtQ@mail.gmail.com> <20210323150837.GB31047@pfrc.org> <CAOj+MMES0hiWdVy=B_HnYmobtyOR87LBrnCwEEFcJAGLwud+=Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMES0hiWdVy=B_HnYmobtyOR87LBrnCwEEFcJAGLwud+=Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-kwY10mTD_4aZBHYiqJQ667Jiiw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP Auto-Discovery Protocol State Requirements
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:41:16 -0000

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