Re: [Idr] Regarding comments on draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities

Susan Hares <> Wed, 10 March 2021 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87CB3A1360 for <>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:49:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0HPGQnBmpbaW for <>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 578433A135C for <>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:49:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Lizhenbin' <>, 'Tony Li' <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 11:48:45 -0500
Message-ID: <00a501d715cd$3cbf2dc0$b63d8940$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQI+Oe7foNEie+DFFVGynZ+e7U136amvHukw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210310-4, 03/10/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Regarding comments on draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:49:03 -0000

Robin and Tony and IDR:

The following excerpt from the minutes from today's session may be helpful
to this discussion.

The basic questions are:

1) Why not use a management plane?
2) If routing, why not limited to BGP-LS peers as information transport?
3) How do you limit the scope of distribution to local area?

Prior to any adoption call, we need to reach group consensus on this points.

Thank you, Sue

Excerpt from minutes
Tony Li: Can this be served using management plane instead of using BGP?
Randy Bush (from chat): +1 to Tony.
Jeffrey Haas (from chat): As a further follow-up to Tony Li’s point, this
stuff would make a lot of sense in BGP-LS.

Tony: Think the IFIT information is not related to routing.
Yali: This information may be used to select a path on which IFIT can be
Eduard V (from chat): SDN Controller (or NMS) is probably mandatory anyway
to collect and analyze. Hence, this discovery could be moved to it too.

Tony Li (from chat): Exactly. This is a data plane capability discovery
Sue: Suggest to provide some more details about on why this should be
included in BGP prior to WG adoption call.
Tony Li (from chat): Exactly. This is a data plane capability discovery
Jeffrey Haas(from chat: It has a binding to routing state, so it makes some
sense. but the scoping requirements are tricky.

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Lizhenbin
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:55 AM
To: Tony Li
Subject: [Idr] Regarding comments on draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities

Hi Tonny,
I am not sure if you do not like BGP to take too much unnecessary work. But
the advantage of BGP is apparent:
1. BGP should not be used for management plane: Before BGP-LS, the topology
can be collected by SNMP. BGP-LS definitely has much advantages in the
performance and interoperability and becomes the de facto standard for SDN
controller to collect topology information.
2. BGP should not be used for non-routing work. But BGP can be utilized to
negotiate seamless BFD information.

BGP already becomes a god protocol :)

Best Regards,

Idr mailing list