Re: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

[Aravind Srinivas Srinivasa Prabhakar <[e-mail]>]

Hello Susan,
Apologies for missing out on responding to the 3 questions.

  1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
<AP>  I agree but I believe  BGP-CT provides the functionality in much more holistic way.

  1.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
<AP> I agree. We should converge towards a single draft

  1.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?


Thanks,
--Aravind

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, July 8, 2022 at 1:56 PM
To: Aravind Srinivas Srinivasa Prabhakar <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Aravind:
Thank you for your input on these two drafts.
If you have time to answer the 3 questions at the bottom of the call during the next two weeks,  I’d appreciate it.
Cheers, Sue

From: Aravind Srinivas Srinivasa Prabhakar <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 1:09 PM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt


Hello,
I did try out BGP-CT on the newer Junos versions and it works as expected. I received positive feedback from my customers on the POC conducted for various use cases they had (traffic redirection, data Sovereignty etc)
The deployment aspect being easy to convert an LU based network to being transport aware and having the debuggability aspects much easier is compelling .
I support the BGP-CT draft as it solves both green field and brownfield network use cases and keeping the transport agnostic.
Thanks,
Aravind
From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 2:17 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

This begins a 2-week WG Adoption call (7/6/2022 to 7/20/2022) for the following drafts:

  *   draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HhU3y1T6NTLoyBauJFU7aa_vOUr2CexzxVi94NoWihdS6klkFx-VUFlBp5mxLgOb2mGE0F3nBkyhxw$>)

  *   draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HhU3y1T6NTLoyBauJFU7aa_vOUr2CexzxVi94NoWihdS6klkFx-VUFlBp5mxLgOb2mGE0F1E0PyTig$>)
The associated drafts may be useful in your consideration.
CAR:

  *   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HhU3y1T6NTLoyBauJFU7aa_vOUr2CexzxVi94NoWihdS6klkFx-VUFlBp5mxLgOb2mGE0F0auaLXXA$> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/



  *   draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HhU3y1T6NTLoyBauJFU7aa_vOUr2CexzxVi94NoWihdS6klkFx-VUFlBp5mxLgOb2mGE0F0auaLXXA$> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy/



  *   draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement-05.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HhU3y1T6NTLoyBauJFU7aa_vOUr2CexzxVi94NoWihdS6klkFx-VUFlBp5mxLgOb2mGE0F21EpskOw$>
CT

  *   draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-06.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HhU3y1T6NTLoyBauJFU7aa_vOUr2CexzxVi94NoWihdS6klkFx-VUFlBp5mxLgOb2mGE0F0B72_l8w$>



  *   draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-02.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HhU3y1T6NTLoyBauJFU7aa_vOUr2CexzxVi94NoWihdS6klkFx-VUFlBp5mxLgOb2mGE0F1XutR1lQ$>)



  *   draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels-04

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HhU3y1T6NTLoyBauJFU7aa_vOUr2CexzxVi94NoWihdS6klkFx-VUFlBp5mxLgOb2mGE0F30O0b0Yg$>)


You may discuss adoption of one or both the main drafts (CAR or Classful-Transport (CT)) in your response, and the associate drafts.
A few caveats on your discussion:

  1.  Please do not worry whether the drafts belong in BESS or IDR.

Both BESS and IDR work on creating relevant quality standards in BGP,

and the chairs will work this out.



  1.  The IDR has spent time over 2020-2022 discussing these drafts.

For background information, see the following links below.

You can refer to these previous presentations or email discussions in your responses.



  1.  Please constrain your discussion to whether these drafts should be adopted.

I’ve started another email thread on whether path establishment/distribution

for a color (aka QOS/SLA/Transport Class) should be done via a

specific BGP route (i.e., per-color NLRI) rather than as per-color attributes on a route.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HhU3y1T6NTLoyBauJFU7aa_vOUr2CexzxVi94NoWihdS6klkFx-VUFlBp5mxLgOb2mGE0F3o3EMCqg$>

Questions (to consider) for these drafts:
Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair) posted a summary on March 21, 2022 that for
route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical,
but operationally different.
    ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HhU3y1T6NTLoyBauJFU7aa_vOUr2CexzxVi94NoWihdS6klkFx-VUFlBp5mxLgOb2mGE0F1yjTJcwA$>

  1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
  2.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
  3.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?




Juniper Business Use Only


Juniper Business Use Only


Juniper Business Use Only