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

[Miya Kohno <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

Indeed. I wanted to mention the difference in starting points, but the
classification was a bit misleading.
BGP CAR works equally well over MPLS , and in fact can work over RSVP-TE
too.

>BGP-CT  - of legacy data and control plane origin
>BGP-CAR - modern data plane + extensibility

Completely agree.

Miya

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:40 AM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Miya & WG,
>
> > Basically yes. But I would say they have different origins. BGP-CT is
> MPLS-native, whereas BGP-CAR is SR-native.
>
> How about SR-MPLS ? Do you classify it under MPLS or under SR :) ?
>
> Don't you think CAR would be a good fit as well even for MPLS customers
> especially those LDP free and/or RSVP-TE free ?
>
> I would rather classify the two proposals a bit differently:
>
> BGP-CT  - of legacy data and control plane origin
>
> BGP-CAR - modern data plane + extensibility
>
> The choice is simple ...
>
> Best regards,
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 4:43 PM Miya Kohno <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sue,
>>
>> I support the adoption of BGP-CAR.
>>
>> > 1. Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally
>> identical?
>>
>> Basically yes. But I would say they have different origins. BGP-CT is
>> MPLS-native, whereas BGP-CAR is SR-native.
>> From the SR/SRv6 operation point of view, CAR is simpler, more
>> scalable/extensible and more consistent with SR Policy.  BGP-CT's
>> indirection and the need for the Mapping Community seems unnecessarily
>> complex.
>>
>> > 2. If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational
>> difference encourage us to have two drafts?
>>
>> One draft is preferable. And BGP-CAR is a more natural extension,
>> especially for SR/SRv6, which is characterized by simplicity.
>>
>> > 3. If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have
>> one or two drafts adopted?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Miya
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:17 AM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idr mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
>