Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue,

To begin with, I would very much prefer that the authors consider folding
this (and other such IGP extensions) into the LSR document into a section
that covers BGP-LS. I understand that the LSR document is past WGLC but it
still has a way to go through review cycles and it would be simpler and
more efficient to just add BGP-LS encoding to it, then do a short LSR+IDR
WGLC review and get it off to the IESG.

Either way, the document perhaps needs some updates before considering
adoption, and please see the comments below.

1) The status of this should also be experimental so it is aligned with the
IGP spec.

2) Though not strictly required, I would suggest adding some text that
covers the description/motivation for adding this into BGP-LS - perhaps a
use case or scenario. Normally, the TE use cases are obvious but I am
unable to understand the motivation in this case. As an example, we don't
have an equivalent of OSPFv2 Type 4 LSA information being signaled into
BGP-LS - just because there was no pressing need for it. There are a few
other such IGP extensions not exposed to BGP-LS ... but I don't want to
give more ideas ;-)

3) Reference to RFC8714 is required in addition to RFC2119.

4) It would be more appropriate to name this TLV as IS-IS Flood Reflection
TLV, unless there was some plan to introduce similar for OSPF.

5) The IS-IS TLV has sub-TLVs but that has not been defined for BGP-LS. Why?

6) Why just this one TLV and not the others from the IS-IS spec? Perhaps
the use case (my comment (2)) below can help justify why only this one is
required and not the others? Another reason why, IMHO, it is better to keep
this extension in the fridge until someone really needs it as an ingredient
to cook a deployment solution.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 2:58 AM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
> draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01.txt
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr/
>
>
>
>   This document defines one new BGP-LS (BGP Link-State) TLV for
>
>    Flood Reflection to match the ISIS TLV for flood reduction.
>
>
>
>    The draft is short (5 total pages).
>
>
>
> Since this BGP-LS feature has been adopted by IS-IS,
>
> Please consider
>
>
>
>    1. Is there any technical difficulty with adding this to the BGP-LS
>    code points?
>
> 2.   Is this draft ready for publication?
>
> 3.   Does this addition help operational networks.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue Hares
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>