From nobody Sun Aug 22 14:13:28 2021 Return-Path: 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 0CECE3A173B; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:13:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 V1mNLO-AknD9; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (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 D8D033A173A; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id z24-20020a17090acb1800b0018e87a24300so452876pjt.0; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:13:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=zgKUY5mrbeBXjG3UgJEXKBa2M38isa71AJhGTQA5lHM=; b=lwVlpG64ftzIFhMoR+NEx3dnG+BMZ+PGl+upu+H8OLUw9NvZes/OMFcCrP1GxOoGtT YBoJwDgMDRap0IxXd2JaLC6pvipl/k3PN/yYpglgd9Tm8JgOstg+cBRq6J++kxFekVkA 7WRpQYNUC0KjP7rmiROqrpHZ42vn87iUYDyH/nMrnnP7/uS6VrtFtSh8wzfgLy0v+9qL C02HvEUKchWo4QlcOm5wn4Sju6s9Zg7HbJg7VSLzhyPjVzNIuJ3VCswIQVlQ6TPJ+FD/ 1HyoiY6RmgUiW+GRuQ7QKxMdWXTVO9bIUvNWnAMmu7/0KlSHylRb4g0/CXFWzTSwh/cQ d97g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=zgKUY5mrbeBXjG3UgJEXKBa2M38isa71AJhGTQA5lHM=; b=ZHM9U5Dlbe9rmq6fMbypxd2G7TmRAQ7UMFTt7dFUpq9Z67w50RNRf2js6tpWg5G92R XjZh7GP9U223i2mBiuHPo51OCQ+ul4+2iIac84ylmJFQGVsc7VM1+kgi/zw0Ls657coE cda8fEVb1VQNKfnffRuEPrNWp5M7Qmr+hik4ROBGZmP5j+WAn+1lLDO6hmzy85CRJuVM P61qHjz+TGzyhhI/Op9Zs9PCaLuWix0CRkfSvYcPCot6FvTO999CvL8nyYaNwRz8s59Z +rJ7dXo8dCb4VGrHyXe/G1qYePFdq+f/5Ak/4HAx8XyFsADT1m57VA0FsZ59ARMUxXoO EwgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531VOcqU2zs+QdFhZc145rT2gXP/FwB0qy9o0+xTrg02z/k3RBuJ Jiau3kswRhuvDgjhsEsLswE2t99sDHOr2Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw5tOCrUeevA32spCtpMY2XMfr7JUt2gJLRAmQo9Pr8Los6VAHySb2ps1Q/OkAPE0A/1Oiw3w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7681:b0:12d:8f52:3d55 with SMTP id m1-20020a170902768100b0012d8f523d55mr25422266pll.70.1629666799201; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6sm17105807pjk.1.2021.08.22.14.13.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5B9BA87C-80CF-408C-BFF9-EA7A0D921CC0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jeff Tantsura Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:13:17 -0700 Message-Id: <709B744C-2C2F-4062-B30C-BEA94D28AB05@gmail.com> References: <20210821162840.GF19054@pfrc.org> Cc: Enke Chen , idr@ietf.org, draft-chen-bgp-redist@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20210821162840.GF19054@pfrc.org> To: Jeffrey Haas X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18G82) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-redist - A Juniper Perspective -> moving to RFC5004 discussion X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 21:13:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail-5B9BA87C-80CF-408C-BFF9-EA7A0D921CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jeff Thanks again! In the draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations we have touched upon RFC5004 a= nd some implications in ECMP fabrics, in the future versions we will expand t= he topic and issues associated (this is quite focused on DC use cases though= - I believe is summary - we observe > 50% BGP deployments). I=E2=80=99d encourage the vendors among us to share some data(p2p is ok) wrt= implementations, potential interactions with router-id tie-breaking and if c= ould be shared publicly - implications wrt HW resources (ECMP groups and sim= ilar). Cheers, Jeff > On Aug 21, 2021, at 09:28, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFJeff, >=20 >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 03:59:38PM -0700, Jeff Tantsura wrote: >> Perhaps RFC5004/router-id (in densely meshed eBGP topologies) behavior d= eserves a good discussion as well. >=20 > A topic I've discussed Sue in the past is we're in need of some documents > discussing some BGP protocol intrinsics that really aren't well documented= . >=20 > The one you mention is an example of "your domain really needs to implemen= t > consistent route selection procedures". >=20 > This is also a reminder that I have errata for RFC 5004 to file and keep > forgetting to do so. >=20 > -- Jeff --Apple-Mail-5B9BA87C-80CF-408C-BFF9-EA7A0D921CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jeff

Thanks again!
=
In the draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations we have touched u= pon RFC5004 and some implications in ECMP fabrics, in the future versions we= will expand the topic and issues associated (this is quite focused on DC us= e cases though - I believe is summary - we observe > 50% BGP deployments)= .
I=E2=80=99d encourage the vendors among us to share some data(p2= p is ok) wrt implementations, potential interactions with router-id tie-brea= king and if could be shared publicly - implications wrt HW resources (ECMP g= roups and similar).


Cheers,
Jeff

On Aug 21, 2021, at 09:28, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
=EF=BB=BF= Jeff,

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 03:59:3= 8PM -0700, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
Pe= rhaps RFC5004/router-id (in densely meshed eBGP topologies) behavior  d= eserves a good discussion as well.

<= span>A topic I've discussed Sue in the past is we're in need of some documen= ts
discussing some BGP protocol intrinsics that really aren'= t well documented.

The one you mention is a= n example of "your domain really needs to implement
consiste= nt route selection procedures".

This is als= o a reminder that I have errata for RFC 5004 to file and keep
forgetting to do so.

-- Jeff
= --Apple-Mail-5B9BA87C-80CF-408C-BFF9-EA7A0D921CC0--