Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-04 (3/10 to 3/24)

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

A correction - Robert has also brought out some of the same points and I
missed that when I said in my email that only Jeff covered them.

This correction is important for the authors since Robert has touched upon
the implications (I have not).

Thanks,
Ketan


On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 8:10 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Sue,
>
> Summary: I don't believe the draft is ready for WG adoption as yet.
>
> Disclaimer: I do not fully understand the IFIT framework to judge if
> carrying/signaling this information in BGP makes sense. I'll leave that to
> others that do understand IFIT.
>
> That said, I don't see the introduction discussing why this is appropriate
> in BGP. Since it talks about limited domain and overlay service, I am not
> able to follow how it helps signal only the capabilities of the PEs in a
> BGP-free core. Are capabilities not required for all nodes?
>
> Coming to the draft itself and the BGP mechanics, there are some issues in
> the draft.
>
> First, which SAFI routes are these extensions going to get signaled with?
> Please point me to the text if I am missing something.
>
> Second, the draft describes two options. I have not seen any discussion
> either in the draft or on the IDR list on which of the two (or both?) are
> suitable. The only one to touch on this topic has been Jeff and the
> response to him was for the WG to pick. I think the WG needs to see those
> updates and the analysis in the document to be able to make that decision.
>
> Alternately, can the proponents pick one? And if both are needed, clarify
> why?
>
> The current draft says that the new community is transitive, but I guess
> it was meant to be non-transitive based on Shunwan's response? Would be
> important to fix that.
>
> Please see inline responses to your specific questions.
>
> 1) Do the additions to BGP (2 Communities and
>
> TLV for next-hop-capability attribute)
>
> help the distribute information regarding the  IFIT options
>
> from tail (egress) nodes to head nodes (ingress)?
>
>
> KT> I don't know since the draft does not specify how this works.
>
>
>
> Are there any cases where these BGP
>
> Communities should be removed or ignored?
>
>
> KT> Yes, but a bigger concern is that they are defined as transitive.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) Are the mechanisms (2 Communities and
>
> attribute TLV) correctly specified?
>
>
> KT> A concern is why two?
>
>
>
> 3) How do these additions interaction with the
>
>   With SR technology for IFIT described in
>
>    draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit, and its
>
>    use of RFC9012 (tunnel attributes)?
>
>
>
> KT> I did not see any reference to RFC9012
>
>
> (Authors an example on how these
>
> technologies work together or
>
>  operate separately would be helpful).
>
>
>
> 4)  Will this addition help network operators
>
> deploying IFIT technology?
>
>
> KT> Unable to determine.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 8:09 PM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Greeting:
>>
>>
>>
>> This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call (3/10/2022 to 3/24/2022)
>>
>> for draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-04
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities/
>>
>>
>>
>> In your comments please consider if:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Do the additions to BGP (2 Communities and
>>
>> TLV for next-hop-capability attribute)
>>
>> help the distribute information regarding the  IFIT options
>>
>> from tail (egress) nodes to head nodes (ingress)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Are there any cases where these BGP
>>
>> Communities should be removed or ignored?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Are the mechanisms (2 Communities and
>>
>> attribute TLV) correctly specified?
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) How do these additions interaction with the
>>
>>   With SR technology for IFIT described in
>>
>>    draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit, and its
>>
>>    use of RFC9012 (tunnel attributes)?
>>
>>
>>
>> (Authors an example on how these
>>
>> technologies work together or
>>
>>  operate separately would be helpful).
>>
>>
>>
>> 4)  Will this addition help network operators
>>
>> deploying IFIT technology?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheerily, Sue
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
>