Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08, to end September 25

Robert Raszuk <> Wed, 09 September 2020 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4998C3A07EC for <>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NcX_qmHwNHdv for <>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88F613A048A for <>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z23so5837052ejr.13 for <>; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xTbfES/7VSBghhsN363EFJ2gTORqsQlv6NA9zexg1mY=; b=EmEy7SfEMBI/hOqfM/ud8IJCBAZCWbrMuQSMXzM20fy2PAzsrKUT3PwWTDhBtHCkL8 t8Oo1l9MnxYyYHG5h4SXQnwiwzFjMKRRdxGeSErw4jePwx7N0DkBekoZTjMZvwhb35hg WGv7vASULEIFmc7t+vZeXJ8XsSE6RMlSvuJgfcKOyy/ejV4WBfe0HgFrAcEDJjO8II3Y qERTtMR7OHpzpQme9Cz+QeI9lZ7uHa76Ctcd2kyBe2TV2GjCrWFrTPm3RQ5BzoVX+Eqy tVTn0npZeqaj4wPdn5kcomecfg0rayH0sILu2IbERROIxwAT6A3/01eDMUas6T7Q01Rq 78SQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xTbfES/7VSBghhsN363EFJ2gTORqsQlv6NA9zexg1mY=; b=MKV5quwkRF6oMBC4hdRGMs56TYhtbhoHHdzzBXyRLgMV8uRJuKv5KltcdDL6EkRdQY /zq45x4PBbGbw2p0eRDO4bJaVa9TskFe4XlpRGnBe0ZWryFYDJTxuOaD+5h8M7o0RA4x vewA6gpok8ts4oYXmtCMFfgOh2EjVot9sh1Y/3XZCEPjMrj7mvw7uH28E62zN/J3iyKp t1AtxImBXkvr8T2hOz9EJmph0trKFE7IqE72JiysrpUBZ8K3cZ/xU39NAILbcfTl2ZWI ilkaRCCuiNY9m5Vrd5p829ctc0NKioqGoGzVxXvixd9NKB73Kk11cx0A9dav4JtcLa+C Oe+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533uBNF0IETMntMXxjS1scyXqYeZDhuQmFkvnPjHso+b1Sd37Z12 +VVV2S180fbV/hDSZNT4d33tmJLUV0rvFPJmkGNPSA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxkxiiGuddJMjYCQf7pYS8xt/pqKM8jpsRBlPd/dtl1BUzw55FJ/wLEmXIdcAqZsD4eYB5SBH7gn27MKQ/LmYc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:213b:: with SMTP id qo27mr5719628ejb.441.1599691993976; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 15:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:53:04 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: John Scudder <>
Cc: Donatas Abraitis <>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <>, IDR List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000d24ae05aee95160"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08, to end September 25
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: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 22:53:24 -0000


Just to clarify one important point. I am not stating that this extension
will break BGP today.

However I am stating that Tragedy of Commons is not an imaginary paradigm
but real danger. It is not this extension which I would be afraid of to add
into BGP capabilities. It is the number of extensions like this one
acting together (which IDR may never observe if we take extension by
extension approach) which may lead to making the Internet weaker.

Any way I am not against this add on - in fact I think it has some limited
use case (like described by author to find which LXCs demons are talking
from compute to my BGP TOR), but let's just please package it nicely.

For example would putting this in large community along with lXC next hop
as a prefix would not be sufficient ? Sounds pretty harmless to me yet will
serve the intended purpose.


On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:04 PM John Scudder <> wrote:

> (Co-chair hat)
> On Sep 9, 2020, at 2:19 PM, Robert Raszuk <> wrote:
> Well last time I checked BGP is rather needed for the Internet. And this
> is major focus here to keep The Internet running.
> I just went and checked our charter, because I was convinced that this
> point was explicitly part of it. It’s not. "The main objective of the
> working group is to support the use of BGP-4 by IP version 4 and IP version
> 6 networks.”
> Nonetheless, I think it would be hard to find someone who thinks it’s OK
> to break the Internet. I don’t think evidence has been presented that this
> proposal would do that, but it’s completely fair to ask that the question
> be thought through.
> —John