Re: [Idr] Transport Instance BGP

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Jeff

So let’s say we look at the AFI SAFI list below

https://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace/safi-namespace.xhtml

Quick parse into 2 buckets

SAFI = Reachability all others

SAFI = Kitchen Sink
7  8 64 66 67 68 69 71 72  73 74 75 76 132 133 134, 140 RPD and the likes



On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:54 PM Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Please count me all in as well on the rejuvenation effort!!
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:06 PM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> Can you provide any references to other proposals aiming at this space
>> within BGP ?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> R.
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:03 AM Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There had been a variety of proposals (to my memory) to decouple
>>> BGP(kitchen sink) from BGP(reachability).
>>> I’d be all in to rejuvenate this effort, and use Robert’ document as the
>>> starting point.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jeff
>>> On Jul 31, 2020, 2:26 PM -0700, Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>om>,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like plan.
>>>
>>> I like the win-win for BGP.👍
>>>
>>> Those two camps Service Provider and  Enterprise are closely aligning
>>> and converging as a major the variable is size, and if the private closed
>>> domain is a worldwide massive network, they are very close to being
>>> completely aligned as is the case with Verizon and maybe other Tier 1 and
>>> Tier 2 providers.  Of course the closed domain bar can swing from tiny to
>>> massive which is your point. Agreed.
>>>
>>> I agree on the former however the IETF has individual representation
>>> from all camps thus the world we live in and cannot satisfy everyone but
>>> the bar can swing from small to large.  Finding the happy medium is a
>>> challenge but that is part of our job in achieving WG consensus and IETF
>>> adoption on any protocol specification.
>>>
>>> That being said from an IETF and protocol development perspective you
>>> have to think of the trickle down of the protocol specifications as it
>>> applies to all vendors and all routers switches appliances you name it that
>>> runs any protocol or specification developed - ospf Isis BGP MPLS SR etc.
>>>
>>> Since that protocol specification developed by the IETF can sit on a
>>> tiny CPE box running BGP MPLS SR or even BIER or commodify incumbent
>>> hardware vendor Service Provider massive OTN box with high 400G density, or
>>> NFV server - router VNFs, or 1RU pizza box white box running disaggregated
>>> software from incumbent commodity vendor, the IETF standard is a standard
>>> for all implementation of the protocol specification independent of
>>> hardware mode or brand big or small it applies to every vendor development
>>> and implementing software.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Gyan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:48 AM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very true ... we could always rename it to "Internet routing related"
>>>>
>>>> In fact this should be win-win for both ... more stable Internet on one
>>>> hand and lower bar for new twicks and mangling with BESS like or NETCONF
>>>> like insertions to essentially a p2mp path vector protocol.
>>>>
>>>> In fact we see it more and more these days (example SRv6-NP long
>>>> discussions) where Internet engineering and stability and close domain
>>>> network design and engineering do not align. They are very different and
>>>> trying to either stretch one or trim the other what we see in number of
>>>> IETF WGs is just not the right thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> One would think that IETF as the name says is about the former ... but
>>>> if we see RFCs and drafts maybe just a small percentage of them indicates
>>>> so.  Almost like the "I" there stands for IP and not Internet ....
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:17 AM Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > Please review this draft and let Robert and myself know if its
>>>>> something
>>>>> > worth reviving.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-ti-bgp-01
>>>>>
>>>>> imiho, there are a lot of things currently called "routing related" i
>>>>> would throw on the other side of that wall.
>>>>>
>>>>> randy
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>
>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>
>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike%C2%A0+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>*Silver
>>> Spring, MD
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike%C2%A0+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idr mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>>
>>> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD