Re: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

["Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,
I support the adoption of BGP-CAR.
Also, I do not support the adoption of BGP-CT.
> 1.- Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
I agree they are functionally identical, but their design is completely different.
As already argued by others, BGP-CT seems to be a more narrowed solution from extensibility point of view. Also, I'm not at ease using the VPN encoding for a BGP transport as proposed by BGP-CT.
On the contrary, BGP CAR is a natural evolution of BGP LU with future extensibility. Hence my preference for BGP-CAR.
> 2.- If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
One draft.
> 3.- If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?
n/a
Thanks,
Pablo.


From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: miércoles, 6 de julio de 2022 20:17
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

This begins a 2-week WG Adoption call (7/6/2022 to 7/20/2022) for the following drafts:

  *   draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car/)

  *   draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/)
The associated drafts may be useful in your consideration.
CAR:

  *   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/



  *   draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy/



  *   draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement-05.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/
CT

  *   draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-06.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/



  *   draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-02.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute/)



  *   draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels-04

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/)


You may discuss adoption of one or both the main drafts (CAR or Classful-Transport (CT)) in your response, and the associate drafts.
A few caveats on your discussion:

  1.  Please do not worry whether the drafts belong in BESS or IDR.

Both BESS and IDR work on creating relevant quality standards in BGP,

and the chairs will work this out.



  1.  The IDR has spent time over 2020-2022 discussing these drafts.

For background information, see the following links below.

You can refer to these previous presentations or email discussions in your responses.



  1.  Please constrain your discussion to whether these drafts should be adopted.

I've started another email thread on whether path establishment/distribution

for a color (aka QOS/SLA/Transport Class) should be done via a

specific BGP route (i.e., per-color NLRI) rather than as per-color attributes on a route.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/

Questions (to consider) for these drafts:
Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair) posted a summary on March 21, 2022 that for
route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical,
but operationally different.
    ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

  1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
  2.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
  3.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?