Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On 11/30/12 19:49 , Randy Bush wrote:
>> the data center community has, for better or worse, decided that BGP
>> is their protocol of choice.  Frankly, I find it mildly nauseating,
>> but it's very clear that they are going to use BGP regardless of what
>> you and I say.
>
> agreed
>
> but this is not what is in the ID or was not the discussion (that i
> remember, with large caveats on my memory).  it has been about hiding
> isp customers behind private asns, which we know how to do already.
>
> while nauseating, this is a more compelling argument.  and i note that
> it does not have the merger problem the isp model has.  or, more
> precisely, when it has the merger problem, it falls only on the fools
> who made it.

I guess that's why we've been arguing past each other, for me its always 
been about enterprise and data centers use of BGP, not ISP customer 
access use of BGP.

I personally know of 2 or 3 large scale enterprises that are on the 
verge of having issues. They are currently just under a 1000 sites and 
would prefer to keep using unique (within their domain) ASNs for each 
site to avoiding the problems with loop detection hacks.  The burden for 
the hacks doesn't fall on the backbone SPs they fall on the customer 
edge sites.

Those hacks can be easily managed in a single backbone SP environment. 
However, when you start using multiple backbone SPs either for more cost 
effective reach or for redundancy, the topology can get complicated 
quickly.  There is a reason BGP has loop detection and in highly 
complicated environments those hacks can burn even the most experienced 
network engineers.  And in only moderately complicated environments, the 
junior engineers that many enterprises have are frequently in over their 
head with those hacks.

Large scale enterprise BGP-VPNs, Data Center BGP uses, and other newer 
applications of BGP that are not generally visible to the big-I topology 
are what is driving this, not ISP customer access BGP.

> update the draft to make these arguments, i will support it, and i
> suspect other dissidents will as well.

In the first paragraph of the introduction there is already a reference 
to BGP/MPLS IP VPNs [RFC4364], do you want Data Centers explicitly added 
with reference to draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc too?  Are there 
other references that exemplify the changing BGP environment that should 
be added as well?

Thanks.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================