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

Hi Robin,

Then please explain why do we have NMS and why army of people are busy with
YANG models ?

Or are you also suggesting new BGP SAFI for YANG ? If so let's boldly go
for it instead of trying to squeeze little piece of configuration here and
there one at a time into BGP.

Best,
R.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 11:21 Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> I think your proposed issue maybe make sense 4/5 years ago. Given the fact
> that SR policy is widely adopted to
>
> distribute specific SR policy to the specified ingress node through, the
> dependence of P2MP may be not very useful.
>
> From other perspective, P2P can also be seen as the special case of P2MP.
> Even in the history of BGP, P2P distribution
>
> can also happen through the control of the local policy. I means there is
> not absolute boundary.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Zhenbin (Robin)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *发件人:* Idr [idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Robert Raszuk [robert@raszuk.net]
> *发送时间:* 2020年7月17日 21:08
> *收件人:* Susan Hares
> *抄送:* idr@ietf. org
> *主题:* Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)
>
> Dear IDR WG,
>
> As discussed previously on the list I strongly object to proceed with this
> draft any further.
>
> While I am as others quite sceptical about distributing more configuration
> over BGP this can be said to be debatable especially for p2mp applications.
>
> However including peer's IP address in the NLRI to which given policy
> applies goes completely AGAINST BGP spray principle of p2mp
> information distribution. Adding such extension to BGP can only deteriorate
> the protocol further. It is not a fit in p2mp protocol to by definition use
> it as p2p transport channel.
>
> The prefix 0 which is in the draft is not the solution to the above
> problem.
>
> Moreover wide community ATOM also can already contain that peer's address
> so placing it in the NLRI of MP_REACH is not needed at all.
>
> To the specific questions asked:
>
> Ad 1) No.
> Ad 2) No.
> Ad 3) No..
> Ad 4) No.
> Ad 5) Yes.
>
> Kind regards,
> R.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:11 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
>> This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd
>>
>> from 7/15 to 7/29/2020.  You can obtain this draft at:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rpd/
>>
>>
>>
>> This draft defines a new AFI/SAFI and new atoms
>>
>> for the Wide Communities.  This WG LC has been delayed
>>
>> as I waited for a resubmission of the Wide Communities draft.
>>
>> I had hoped to do these 2 WG LC in parallel.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve not received the Wide Communities draft, but we will
>>
>> start this WGLC to provide feedback to the authors.
>>
>> We may have to run a short follow-up to this WG LC
>>
>> If there are changes to the Wide Communities draft during
>>
>> Its WG LC.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is an IPR statement on this draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> In your responses please answer the following questions:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Do you feel this draft has an solution that is acceptable
>>
>>    With the IPR as a WG RFC?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Do you feel this draft is ready to publish?
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) Do you know of implementations of this draft?
>>
>>
>>
>> 4) Do you know of deployments of this draft?
>>
>> If so, is this feature useful in the deploy ments.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5) Do you feel that Wide Communities is ready for
>>
>> Publication?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheerily, Susan Hares
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
>