Re: [Idr] Adoption Call on DT document (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-00.txt) [3/10/2021 to 3/31/2021]

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Wed, 17 March 2021 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3947D3A17DC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mIBUsjvt0LvJ for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1BC43A17DA for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id t18so1937021pjs.3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YGPq8c1D7enpD4RdYCDNfHSTRwpX9juE7e1lPaGyYFY=; b=l9vPjmNspPeQcuAIyYqIhXadPlEm9MokDYwgIr6W8bUUucU5elu+QWlTznlhSPQSXO Be8ezDRCYMdNUDZ8xJ4sDgbCR8bs83RGqTIgcGGdEcyKHsBHyV/lcRaGsjkO5J8CjmOK UAEhoKn3pFM659b0qJ+963B7bm+PBmSQjaA8s/lx2jy0wC1im5gz6cHzrKNoDGRHnr0z puMyEPxskkjgBr6gs+PnwILEhhgYDYE+Hoi16LeYPyIz3GCiuKe9Xlf7K25ZvD6mRKKk FbuqNt21GWX8cJyp6s8Q6H1pQIuRM1FfAG5eqClMZSMvy0uG2iUFGcMc9ZUbNlpSltYa ulQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YGPq8c1D7enpD4RdYCDNfHSTRwpX9juE7e1lPaGyYFY=; b=UAATeY4QsyKJz6J8rtr/Yj5jK6AR4reaeWxD8Nqt3t6Pe3cdTPHcTEGnH/i0HHi2qi AM4lnqyFBj3V92sf5/rfgK2zM4ez2YjwTGeLJnTL5kbuxA+fJFva0o2gn6Pl7WLmJ9CS t+EMZwg3U1Ime/Lr0llYmvnsuh0NKFDPVrK46JnvEYQhhU/l07iKH0MGWp/gsORfqNlT wNttAl/A2Z7jdEIIVy28aDBXEmh2EYf1FkKTYsPdy7PcCWUWfZEYZDzkZfgCHvYyQtpa Z0mA0FyvRwbNMQUo1cI7O0Vb+DNaG3vIc9OzRfLlhnxe9YhpJq/2wPu96rYe3NR/e8IS Tizw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530PFAp1CBHbxJXgVVsjfbh9KxuV5l4M42LTu0VtM9qcP+gXO+Vd HvQEQxLRjIBay0/Kazi8/qqzAUzr3QQG97heFws=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwVHY6a3eDihVDxWAzmS9lo3NsIuqHM3YHGsHsRDKSpA7wRM9PJGTwfxKOTFVB00ppHHC9K7Fm68ETiSS9FQSI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2358:: with SMTP id ms24mr1191534pjb.132.1616023661227; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <010401d715d7$b061cb70$11256250$@ndzh.com> <295544FB-D1AF-4FEB-84D3-CBDDDD2F266A@cisco.com> <BY5PR14MB414562F4A1D977A6A0CD3B15FA6A9@BY5PR14MB4145.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR14MB414562F4A1D977A6A0CD3B15FA6A9@BY5PR14MB4145.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:27:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3RPP_YkDFF5vd9BGm0LcvQa=aks481uyY5QCk7nwSiSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Majumdar, Kausik" <Kausik.Majumdar@commscope.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000046b42805bdc3d45b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HCD8wcfqMkznxhTrcgtYSj4G5Zk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption Call on DT document (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-00.txt) [3/10/2021 to 3/31/2021]
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:27:45 -0000

I support WG Adoption.

Few comments.


The BGP Autoconf draft for Data Centers is primarily  geared for BGP only
Data Center fabric per RFC 79

As the draft reference L3 discovery solutions from LSVR, can the scope also
apply to DC with IGP underlay or is this strictly for BGP underlay like
LSVR.  I see it’s out of scope but wanted to see if possible to make in
scope.

1) do you think this represents a good set of requirements for bgp autoconf
protocol in the data center?

Yes

2) Do you think the document should remove any requirements or add an
requirements?

 No

3) Do you think the review of the protocols should be moved to another
document?

 No

4) Should a IDR DT create the requirements for non-Data Center deployments
prior to starting work on a BGP auto-configuration protocol? If so, should
a DT start these requirements in parallel?

 I think both DC and Non DC can be done in parallel.


Kind Regards

Gyan

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 2:10 PM Majumdar, Kausik <
Kausik.Majumdar@commscope.com> wrote:

> As a contributor, I also support the WG adoption.
>
>
>
> My comments to the below questions along the line with Acce.
>
>
>
>    1. do you think this represents a good set of requirements for bgp
>    autoconf protocol in the data center?
>
>
>
> Yes
>
>
>
>    1. Do you think the document should remove any requirements or add an
>    requirements?
>
>
>
> I don’t see that we need to remove any requirements at this time what we
> have reviewed and captured. But definitely, we can review one more based on
> the input from others.
>
>
>
>    1. Do you think the review of the protocols should be moved to another
>    document?
>
>
>
>               To me, it is easier to have it in the same document, but if
> others prefer to move in another document I am fine.
>
>
>
>    1. Should a IDR DT create the requirements for non-Data Center
>    deployments prior to starting work on a BGP auto-configuration protocol? If
>    so, should a DT start these requirements in parallel?
>
>
>
>               I think we should.  Yes, DT should start on these
> requirements.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kausik
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Acee Lindem (acee)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:31 AM
> *To:* Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] Adoption Call on DT document
> (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-00.txt) [3/10/2021 to 3/31/2021]
>
>
>
>
>
> As a contributor, I support WG adoption.
>
>
>
> *From: *Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <
> shares@ndzh.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 1:04 PM
> *To: *IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[Idr] Adoption Call on DT document
> (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-00.txt) [3/10/2021 to 3/31/2021]
>
>
>
> Greetings:
>
>
>
> This is an adoption/feedback call for the DT team document:
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations/
> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1A0kHOz5A99Y7Y3RA3G77hJqKB9MBYdy14di4w9NnTD1Ojy-jew28bad9PgDoVnFYvQkbsJsmb3gx39vdoHc1dRWP5ewAe0wnOUDG1f1r_wTyXTrE22oiTF88O5z_W72fzrGUCb0KlR34qHzO_IVJR8eDc9QvIitnTIh7LB4RT4brJ_oZXOtCX6bxmvNCETc_hdPFXtgajNG7A3TtjRsUp1NRsqVsaL7idWeTo18nRIY5M4k7CDCzCPbgxvipvKTL55u8gTAwDPgbY_27UdhG6GuAOASHK0hiNxCXvVXg7iWbU2-Fes4VvoSz3s49my3H/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations%2F>
>
>
>
> This call for comments will run for 3 weeks.
>
>
>
> In your feedback please let us know:
>
>
>
>    1. do you think this represents a good set of requirements for bgp
>    autoconf protocol in the data center?
>
> Yes
>
>
>
>    1. Do you think the document should remove any requirements or add an
>    requirements?
>
>
>
> Not at this time.
>
>
>
>    1. Do you think the review of the protocols should be moved to another
>    document?
>
>
>
> I don’t think it is necessary but wouldn’t be strongly opposed.
>
>
>
>    1. Should a IDR DT create the requirements for non-Data Center
>    deployments prior to starting work on a BGP auto-configuration protocol? If
>    so, should a DT start these requirements in parallel?
>
>
>
> I believe it makes sense to use the same DT.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue Hares
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> 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