Re: [Idr] [GROW] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)

Sebastian Becker <sb@lab.dtag.de> Sun, 26 July 2020 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sb@lab.dtag.de>
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 808F43A0C9D; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 01:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.695
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=lab.dtag.de
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 2VGXjaGoJsal; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 01:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OldBailey.lab.dtag.de (OldBailey.lab.DTAG.DE [194.25.1.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 560753A0C9C; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 01:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 12DF1D1C0C; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 10:42:44 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lab.dtag.de; s=dkim; t=1595752966; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=UtV6h6aAbIfwcbxvQ3WK2yh7mRHTxnsuKvN2d+ra2XI=; b=LTn+/UKOjvbQdYTSdkzphrqUjH7Pua3NRvWmDnSm+nLlpSvg+JnxpTpbK/qShTM4xkO/BH mo4j5N6Tl15DJGJndFttivAt+Q/xxim8m1D6DAHWXYjYw0+nnRJe3altU3uhZWwZtirfO6 ZponnoNAjPt0+YnHdAOhLwEiLn2k0kcmKUxoSfJMqkkFh/S4H5fjMpf2VlJ5k5dZp0+AVi IzP50V0lddsEnrYx/6D4BG03jBKmga/tj5aro/9FWBFhTMmMHU5XxgTv/Y2S5HXH/SxYn+ VO65IwalDoApy7HXIRinc22rgY5w2AeJOg4claj8KhFBaZAuvSKELLuhpajevA==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7F59F8DC-87B1-461D-86FE-D5423E5D9BC7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Sebastian Becker <sb@lab.dtag.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 10:42:30 +0200
Message-Id: <3CAA6C93-C77D-4210-A0DC-D8218A79F4DF@lab.dtag.de>
References: <m2sgdfnts1.wl-randy@psg.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2sgdfnts1.wl-randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Q1FOiUWGWytFrVKEQFwaNB4K9h4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)
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: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 08:43:01 -0000

Me, too! +1

-- 
Sebastian Becker
sb@lab.dtag.de

> Am 25.07.2020 um 23:57 schrieb Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>om>:
> 
> 
>> 
>> As said before and as reiterated by Jakob and Ketan BGP is not the
>> right tool for p2p config push. We must stop adding such extensions to
>> BGP like this one or BGP-LS or SR Policies if we really want to keep
>> routing at some proper stability levels.
> 
> just in case folk missed the last time i agreed with this sentiment,
> 
> +1
> 
> randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr