Re: [Idr] IDR interim 25 September, -car type 2 - split to separate document?

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

Aggregation is possible in type 1.
>

Well the entire purpose of using RD is to transport prefixes disjointly.

I understand that ABR could originate prefixes with its own RD but how does
it know which prefixes it should aggregate and which not in type 1 ?

Do you assume that prefixes with the same color in type 1 will always be
aggregatable irrespective of other path attributes ?

Then last to me Type 2 is the proposal which addresses many previous
> attempts to define separate next-hop SAFI (Ilya and I had one such attempt:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost-01)  and
> as I recall we were not alone in trying to define it.
>
>
> This broadens the scope from color aware routing even past the "for srv6"
> justification.
>

I was assuming the entire purpose of carrying infrastructure routes
separately from service routes is the scope. Color is a nice add on -
optional in fact. Tomorrow it can be topology id, yet in few weeks flex
algo ID etc ...


Minimally, we got through a few years of process covering just type 1 for
> color-aware use cases.  Type 2 shows up literally at WGLC time.
>

Well I get this. But since the very first version there was a Type defined.
If so there is a purpose for the type.

And don't you think less RFCs is better ?

Is it scope creep, but desired scope creep?  Then it likely will push out
> the RFC publication time as we go through similar review for the new
> functionality. If it's not fundamental and it's important to ship -car type
> 1, splitting it out as an extension is an easy option.
>

Well the spec is experimental. I think the comment above is more towards
standards track documents. In my understanding experimental drafts are much
more flexible in accommodating new ideas and additions. Besides there seems
to be good support for Type 2 already.

Thx,
R.




> If the authors want to go through similar review effort and reset the
> clock for type-3, type-4, etc. at a later date if the WG decides the scope
> creep is appropriate - so be it.
>
> -- Jeff
>
>
>