[Idr] Feedback to Spring WG on BGP and policy

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 29 July 2020 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
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 0600E3A08FF for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 04:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.615
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.267, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 kyi9UGTkI48j for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 04:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (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 A9C693A08F8 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 04:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.107.100.94;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:08:51 -0400
Message-ID: <003501d66598$aab4ac50$001e04f0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0036_01D66577.23A30C50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdZlmI6AFVVAJ3hIRBS8J725MfjpUQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200729-0, 07/29/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OOnX3WYMqFHN-9Bug0i-IKTFZZ4>
Subject: [Idr] Feedback to Spring WG on BGP and policy
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:09:06 -0000

A discussion during the WG LC of draft-ietf-idr-rpd raised some issues such
as: 

 

1) Please do not add a general p2p configuration push to BGP  for policy -
it is not the right tool for p2p configuration 

2)  Use netconf for pushing configuration 

 

What things should the IDR WG tell the spring WG about what to add to BGP in
general or BGP-LS? 

 

I've added this thread in case you'd like me to provide other feedback to
spring WG.