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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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
>