Re: [Idr] Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14/2022 to 7/27/2022) - Operational Differences

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Is pull model really going to be deployed inter-as here ?

Many thx,
R.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022, 06:34 Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> As per the current version of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color/
> Ability to aggregate the intent-aware route itself has not been listed as
> a specific requirement.
> While ability to aggregate subscription routes has been listed as a
> requirement.
>
> In case of MPLS forwarding plane, aggregation of intent aware routes is
> not feasible as you need distinct label for each <endpoint, color>. In case
> of SRv6, its feasible to summarize the intent-aware routes but it takes away
> visibility into other granular information such as E2E metric, PE
> reachability etc and such a requirement
> needs more discussion.
>
> A pull model via automatic subscription routes has been listed as a
> scaling requirement for the solution in
> Sec 6.3.2.1 of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color/
> .
> This is a much better scalability option IMO.
>
> Rgds
> Shraddha
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 7:45 PM
> To: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> Cc: idr@ietf. org <[e-mail]>; Sue Hares <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14/2022 to 7/27/2022)
> - Operational Differences
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> Robert,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 04:00:32PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > 2.5 min of BGP propagation time for 1.5 million routes (as Jeff
> > stated). Do you think it is not worth to consider an aggregation in such
> a case ?
>
> The 1.5M routes is from the problem statement in SPRING.  I'd suggest you
> take it up with that WG as to whether they think these were intended to be
> aggregatable.
>
> Discussion of what aggregation could look like in a proposal is
> appropriate for IDR.
>
> > > Trolling will result in your posts being put into the moderation queue.
> >
> > Part 3 is about operational differences. Not every difference requires
> > a topology - some do some do not.
> >
> > I quoted sections from both drafts ?
> >
> > I do think this fear of moderation - when just pointing out
> > operational differences and asking clarification questions - simply
> inappropriate.
>
> It's reasonable to ask the authors how they intend to address aggregation.
> It's reasonable to point out text you think supports your thinking.
>
> The following is not reasonable.
>
> "Till that is fixed I recommend that CT draft goes back to the drawing
> board and would not be even accepted as experimental. Its experiment has
> just concluded as a failure."
>
> Seriously.  Stop it.
>
> -- Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ECHaucPlCQgzPUSvACwT0XMDE-oIyExzTyg-OFnep1Tp6WTMEDFBGtqO_t0QbgSod4LHmSUcGA0RJQ$
>