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

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Stephane:
Thank you for letting the IDR chairs know your opinion.
Would you also answer the following questions on this adoption poll:

  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?
Thanks!
Cheerily, Sue
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 5:46 AM
To: [e-mail]; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Subject: 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

Hi Sue, I support the adoption of BGP CAR. The two proposals are too close from a functional perspective to justify two solutions that would create more burden/complexity in the industry/deployments.
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tLzUyMzkwNDY2NDVjMjVjMjc2ZmU0MDM1NTg4MDkxZWZiLzE2NTgyMjM5ODMuMTE=#key=923e8f2de65e537e2a37784b5fa562b2>  FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>

Hi Sue,

I support the adoption of BGP CAR.
The two proposals are too close from a functional perspective to justify two solutions that would create more burden/complexity in the industry/deployments. Then I have two oppose to WG adoption of BGP CT.
Speaking with my long experience of large network operations and engineering, I find BGP CAR better because:
- it's more straightforward in term of operations: with BGP services on top (which is the primary/only case), it becomes really similar to BGP services over BGP LU that seamless MPLS networks are using today. It is also allowing to reuse the same "autosteering" mechanism that SR-TE uses today (BGP service route with color ext community C and NH E is steered over a transport path that satisfies C and has an endpoint of E)
I don't see the point of introducing VPN like mechanism for transport. It brings more confusion to me than helping the operations.

- from a technical point of view:
- As the NLRI uses the same components as SR-TE policies, it integrates very well with SR networks while at the same time still working with RSVP-TE or any other technology. But the trend of the industry is towards Segment Routing so this is good to design in such a way while keeping compatibility with older technologies.
- BGP CAR learns lessons/mistakes from the past and provide a more flexible encoding (supporting various dataplanes) while keeping packing efficiency. While designing as legacy and repeat mistakes when we can do better ?

- I hear the arguments on the list about what's happening when there are network interconnections with different administrations of colors. BGP CAR addresses it through the use of LCM. While nobody can say that this scenario cannot happen, people cannot say that this will be the norm. If the two networks are under a completely different administration point of view, likely there will not be a BGP CAR interco but rather a BGP service interco like option A because of security/non-trust issues (even option B is sometimes challenging because of security purposes). If networks are interconnecting using BGP CAR, likely they trust each other and likely belonging to the same company and there are a lot of cases where color usage can be synchronized (company-wide network design guidelines...). Of course, there are cases, where it's not possible (independent affiliates...) and this is where LCM/color mapping can be used, but this makes it a corner case, not the norm. So, it's good to have a very simple solution that doesn't use any BGP community and that will address most of the cases, and "corner cases" are addressed using LCM.

Brgds,

Stephane

From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: mercredi 6 juillet 2022 20:17
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [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

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/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjk0OgyAYRK9iWBc-QKHoyqsgP2pQMUDTpE3vXummyaxmXl7mjR5pQ0ODllLOPABYXXRJ2gSXyOqKJzHNYKMBm7Qv2OZg8ORyxtN8YqMToFuDQjUcrlwso0LJnnHIi04uj4d9LcTEHQRve9pJ2QnDr9yldx1thVCK9sz5CZgUil-Qaglj1eqqNW9rCfGZf2fGedfrVnV1t3X_N58v9Jk-cw.MEUCIQCe_r80pDcy9PgMCEDlSI4koEq1r_xdKz6yc9AdkD1W9gIgX6ZQ7VQS51XzQJSPpjj1Cg0DgLqW51FymmD9bKwj_2w>)

  *   draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFzt1uwyAMBeBXqbgeISSBkV71VVx-EhYaItvVpFV994XdTPKVz_Env8QTi7hexMp80FWpAAyM4LeIXY6cuoqLCtWrgJBYblAywpfMAeV9OaQvQJSeRZ43Ox0VWR4F9khKfFzE1uQ98mno3jg760HRChjptoeftfP1ocwwzv1k7WT8cM6nTXHqR2Oc62cd011pa9xwltzYad3U2FQqmbf6TX9P3pYH5NK4loeW_2_ev-fHSC8.MEQCIFZRgTqeY3qqGuzEG3ADud9jhDlF9mNMQemkgt-OrNwEAiBjBWyBceP_1xJL5890hBSluK41Yba73RL8t4M1dYE5SQ>)
The associated drafts may be useful in your consideration.
CAR:

  *   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjcsOwiAURH-lYW24PArSrvorCLeP9IGBa0w0_rvFjcmsZk7OvNkjb6xv2Ex0Lz1A9OQp-7Bi5gvSyFOeIKYA7NKwtZIH0tlJYZztpIIy-4xlOOJr5iHtYJTuRGtta4I6c7UjtkIb45zoJI43kNY4dUJOcymrFau1bAut6Vl-p8O0-2WrurrHuv-bzxdweDW-.MEQCIHrLpmtCO-Jl37tvKGJrf7C6oahUvgElW1UOMbrsqZ8YAiBRCzaH2qLbF3Ee3zOMufkIp3PsTYWZohx4HrlOvYV1pA> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/



  *   draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjcsOwiAURH-lYW24PArSrvorCLeP9IGBa0w0_rvFjcmsZk7OvNkjb6xv2Ex0Lz1A9OQp-7Bi5gvSyFOeIKYA7NKwtZIH0tlJYZztpIIy-4xlOOJr5iHtYJTuRGtta4I6c7UjtkIb45zoJI43kNY4dUJOcymrFau1bAut6Vl-p8O0-2WrurrHuv-bzxdweDW-.MEQCIHrLpmtCO-Jl37tvKGJrf7C6oahUvgElW1UOMbrsqZ8YAiBRCzaH2qLbF3Ee3zOMufkIp3PsTYWZohx4HrlOvYV1pA> 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/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjskOgyAURX_FsC4iKhRd-SsIzyEOGN5rmrTpvxe6aXJXdzi5b_aIO-sLthBd2AvhLVmK1m0QyxVoKkOchQ9O-Ggn4h43x0dA5ON8cWcjv2IYdzg4ph0ccJJgt4JtmXkCpbWslNGdrAUuNgIOp38tpQuHUHXTVa3WrXJ10l1P0FaNUsZUnYRpFFIrU6eSaUopMxUyFfeVtvDE371hPuy6Z1zOfc7_zucLt7VFkw.MEYCIQD47FaCjPdzwe4KRTu_IqGrY6b-ZrKIZnfexlMiyCYF0AIhAI3HaNls9By_HJmR_3fQ8FLVxPT0lSNbuxMb2_lHE6Cl>
CT

  *   draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-06.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjssOgyAQRX-lYV15qFB05a9QGZQIahiaJm3674VumsxiMufOyX2TRwpkvJA15xNHxqzJJiczb5Coh-zokRZmj5nZZFxuVlgsNHgmvy9NPAM2CCYGwLIkRq4XslXbDrn8CS61GkTLcDUJcNrta6XzEZlsu4H3SvVybsvclIOed1JqzQcB7s6EkrotId1RIaoVqhWDz9vxxF-xaYnGh6qr3Fb-v3y-43dDbQ.MEUCIBWMTZTAAjLnufHBmEANtm2ISUPbPjDXzrkiUMg9vpprAiEA3Wc5dHf9mQUBEhIlCoYviyhXV6gTHDfNOIgda-nsCIc>



  *   draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-02.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjk0OgjAQha9iuhZKgdbiyquMdJBKoWQ6RKPx7lI3Jm_1fr68t9goiPNBjMxrOkvpgIEJ-gmp9MhDGekmXeylIxi4mCB4gnvhHRXzFtgv-OQxrgUwk79ujFIcD2LKyAV5H6tKW9OpWqYRCNNlca-x7OMsdd10VWtMq_t618kM2FaN1tZWncLhKpXRtt5LtimVylTM1BQ8T_GRfu8utxl8yLicu5z_nc8XydFF1A.MEYCIQDnYzEW2pA4J6pioMDUA55sPaW2eIKeaWO7KCu6n3W2wQIhAJpRjBwcug1CT0oPm0EpKSSmDAAGGBvcIBwMEYii9GG8>)



  *   draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels-04

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFzkEOgjAQBdCrmK4tpUBrceVVBjpApQjpjJpovLvUjclfzZ-8_Le4pyjOBzExb3RWygMDJ-hnTEVAHoo1jcqvvfIJBpYzxJDgKjskkt24SQqj3FJ4AKNctkgyQoeRlDgexJzhG_JO6NI42-pK0QQJ6XLzr6no10WZqm7LxtrG9NWekx2wKWtjnCtbjUOntDWu2p9cXWidVcwqxcDz-qTfxsu4QIiZy73P_f_y-QJYF0dq.MEYCIQD-L-pxFCxu5zX7z4X9TYnoabRmL_rDUfrSgy7kVOuzfwIhAKg4BcKOBbalJuPI98Fh6tc63bKrrhJ4l1MuTdbqPFhg>)


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/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=mailarchive.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjk0LgjAcxr-K7Bz-N93m9GQQUXQr8G463fBlsS2jou-e6xI8p-flx_NGdzuiIkLK-5srAKZaj7VtlF5krKXvYmN7CAZMrgfdWtgrc8L04C7P3J8zbapsu8PVwo-WAtpEaAi4Wfp1SDATPCcJOFVb6cq5fam4MROwJM0x5ZyyJlmV8U5SnDImBM6J7K5AOBPJWhJpTEigykB1o_aDebjfs7IPXwMu5G3I_87nCwMVQcw.MEQCIC1lCJCA3o646GiIQKnTdRJ9HI2YRB7VxVV63xsB0QqlAiAyETYJrdPZ0VVzup0GVbP99Bf8st25Osaqv7yQ9djoJA>

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/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=mailarchive.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjrsKwjAYhV-lZJb-SdrEpFMXtZOgIoJbbdMm9CZJvKD47jYuwpnO5eO80c32KIuQ9v7qMoChNH1pK23uKjbKN_FkWwgGDK4FU1tQXG73tTS03ODT8bnuDnrV7IqzKyZAiwh1ATcqPw8JZoJLQsHp0iqXj_VLx9U0AKOJxCnnKavorCVvVIoTxoTAkqjmAoQzQeeSSGJCAlUFquuN76aH-z3L2_A14EJeh_zvfL4mrUIU.MEUCIBhdGLwgY1viPK5yNHF_5_N68PBDh8n119DkVtkxJvcKAiEA9Ra4Z5g9yGjj8Bgpy-S2b-ELql30cLOjhvpEJCMSIII>

  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?