Re: [Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team

Robert Raszuk <> Wed, 04 December 2019 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F9D12095A for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:54:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 qthxWHIqqDIQ for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:54:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 540C0120934 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:54:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id m188so1331384qkc.4 for <>; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:54:11 -0800 (PST)
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=2uEMl0cg2UoucjXoysWp+/ixGVlFjTy8raVMgYeZP3s=; b=OQsvbZsTOAq9YM1ArX3EPEarchcOMitEWKcboo20Gl6qIXG1Rq6hx5dcBRxXi2Hlov 2QJigrulsKaa9N/pmpZ8c3WuHwDvxvEbA90etvRT3vWZzW4jHUzMoALPS8dRzwxHkUhX NPskkOUdYPtIWYw5QjAwczOD9XRbd6A3rXx5GZ9+kNbFwy3s7nVQwmrvT6sSRMR8QQ+R cg0BqsHI/xRR2WDBgpUTTv5NBRWzxbwRnH8qmuiUcdD9IiUHjbQivOQfJ4YiWLZ00li9 eyJksrU8CxrJjum08GjCGhvOBjuUyLKIc5+3+aOXkHNZOX6UHFpRgeY/+wVTAGyNiYEL XS3w==
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=2uEMl0cg2UoucjXoysWp+/ixGVlFjTy8raVMgYeZP3s=; b=JFgs1Resddj2kxXJUdMhsGTl0avswwu4UijRjtemCckkkOhLnZhGck3wTZRcZevJoP iG5CoCJf97I5IyjVJNf01OlbsSUMUSe40o+uwfWzMoQXjdIGGAWxfqBhDKWG0ppTX8FJ AprALoqvSwHYWdUheYCzaPuovJfmarTqNe27rnB+MakN5j2To77qlvn68Nkc4xyi8VfI ejMN/YlwBYJvWRLGDWiS1BDr18zKhmByKCHZOC3ZlDBWQxqyK8DtMagRAvve2hSnnbab djW8Jl5H8Zd/CoCXEcP71KVuHwP9RFoBUFK0uGZkiEcyrtJ/I+1mdhg7veyVCDWUN4DT y1fw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU0Yd8ZblRCHU/ynOevO6apqUNdX2PpzYtTa8UJcXPruryjVNrz zwlwZCqNxdMKqZDOueUc11Q153M27hrsfVG/p0JxzM3m4DY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzj7h93arOSLtN4cAYigTD08r4NhFPvBh8eg5DIXhevPC/xbsQpivqL1O1fafSZ3x3Na/J9hT3Ih1SUxsreLHc=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4a0a:: with SMTP id x10mr1952954qka.302.1575492850259; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:54:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 21:54:02 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: John Scudder <>
Cc: idr wg <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000afaf790598e703a6"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team
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, 04 Dec 2019 20:54:13 -0000

Hi John,

When this was announced I asked if this design team scope is to work on
discovering your BGP peers in DC space or also in WAN and IX environments.

As you know I have been focusing on the latter for a number of years and I
can share that discovering p2p eBGP peers requires a very different
solutions as compared with discovering your iBGP peers or IX members.

So please kindly clarify the scope of this effort here.

Just stating BGP autodiscovery IMHO is too broad at this point. Likewise
working on the DC space and declaring we are done with BGP autodiscovery
all together would not be in the best interest of the protocol.

I suggest that this effort be called BGP DC or p2p autodiscovery.

Many thx,

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:33 PM John Scudder <jgs=> wrote:

> Hi All,
> I realized this morning that although we announced in the last meeting
> that we’re forming this design team, we never announced it on the list.
> This is to correct that mistake. Here’s the text of the slide we presented
> at the meeting (
> ):
> ---
> Autodiscovery
> • Clear interest in WG to work on this topic.
> • No clear consensus on a specific approach.
> • Proposals (four of them) progressively closer semantically, seems likely
> convergence can happen.
> • But, important differences remain.
>         • At least: transport (L2, L3), liveness, security, maybe multihop.
> • Chairs propose to charter a design team to close on a single proposal,
> by next meeting.
>         • Might build on one of the existing drafts, might be a new draft,
> up to the design team.
>         • Emphasis on pragmatism, OK to limit applicability (for example,
> to a single administrative domain).
> • Questions? Comments? Volunteers?
> —
> We are in the process of forming the team and hope to announce it soon. We
> have many good volunteers already but if you didn’t know and do want to
> volunteer, please contact Sue and me.
> Note that the design team will not make any binding decisions: as with all
> WG work, the WG has the final word, so any output of the DT will serve as
> input to the WG as a whole. (So even if you aren’t part of the DT, that
> doesn’t mean you won’t have a chance to be part of the process.)
> Thanks,
> —John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list