Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)

["Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <[e-mail]>]

BGP seems the wrong way to distribute routing policy.
IETF has already defined a way to distribute configuration: Netconf.
Netconf provides needed features that BGP does not have:
- Atomic Transactions:
  If one configuration item fails, they all fail.
  They all either succeed or all fail. There is no partial success.
  Multiple configurations in one transaction are applied at the same time.
   . This avoids non-deterministic transient behavior between application of the first policy and the last.
- Feedback:
  BGP is "spray and pray".
  Netconf provides an acknowledgement that the config either failed or was applied,
  which then allows the controller to take the next steps with
  reliable information about what configuration exists in the network.
- Persistence:
  If the BGP session were to go down, all the configuration it sent will be implicitly withdrawn.

If another AS would not allow a foreign AS to configure it with netconf,
it would not allow it with RPD either.

There are already ways in BGP for an AS to signal preference across AS boundaries:
Med, AS-path length, communities.

Regards,
Jakob.

From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 6:11 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)

This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd
from 7/15 to 7/29/2020.  You can obtain this draft at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rpd/

This draft defines a new AFI/SAFI and new atoms
for the Wide Communities.  This WG LC has been delayed
as I waited for a resubmission of the Wide Communities draft.
I had hoped to do these 2 WG LC in parallel.

I've not received the Wide Communities draft, but we will
start this WGLC to provide feedback to the authors.
We may have to run a short follow-up to this WG LC
If there are changes to the Wide Communities draft during
Its WG LC.

There is an IPR statement on this draft.

In your responses please answer the following questions:

1) Do you feel this draft has an solution that is acceptable
   With the IPR as a WG RFC?

2) Do you feel this draft is ready to publish?

3) Do you know of implementations of this draft?

4) Do you know of deployments of this draft?
If so, is this feature useful in the deploy ments.

5) Do you feel that Wide Communities is ready for
Publication?

Cheerily, Susan Hares