Re: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

[Reshma Das <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue,
I am writing this email to provide a view point from someone who read and implemented and is currently helping in customer engagement of BGP-CT for JUNOS.
Firstly reading the draft and understanding the technology was very simple. The concepts and the machinery used is similar to BGP VPN technologies
that is widely deployed and understood, which makes the time to familiarize BGP-CT short.

>From an implementation standpoint, we were able to extend and re-use time-tested design of L3VPN procedures. We found ourselves in lesser brainstorming sessions
about protocol intricacies and could focus our energy in further automation of the implementation that eventually customers liked.
Thereby  implementing BGP-CT was less tedious and error prone as it allows re-use of concepts and procedures  that have stood the test of time.

Currently talking and working with customers, we get a positive feedback as it solves all their use cases and also it works with various  modules and features within BGP
that is currently deployed in field (RTC, protection etc).
Please find my answers below:

  1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
 [Reshma]: They look similar but there are minor differences. From customer engagements we learn that there are some use cases that BGP-CT solves  that CAR does not address.
This highlights there are some functional differences.



  1.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?



  1.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?
I am for adopting one technology and BGP-CT would be my pick.


Thanks & Regards,
Reshma Da





Juniper Business Use Only
From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 11:17 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

This begins a 2-week WG Adoption call (7/6/2022 to 7/20/2022) for the following drafts:

  *   draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBmfTGaej450w8ANu2YseOhC3rBUD-MsLT3U6x8jJaLGxOM4YRcnPuw00cmNmmhdOchF_qp68dOJpA$>)

  *   draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBmfTGaej450w8ANu2YseOhC3rBUD-MsLT3U6x8jJaLGxOM4YRcnPuw00cmNmmhdOchF_qpj0T3VUw$>)
The associated drafts may be useful in your consideration.
CAR:

  *   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBmfTGaej450w8ANu2YseOhC3rBUD-MsLT3U6x8jJaLGxOM4YRcnPuw00cmNmmhdOchF_qoiABbpDA$> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/



  *   draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBmfTGaej450w8ANu2YseOhC3rBUD-MsLT3U6x8jJaLGxOM4YRcnPuw00cmNmmhdOchF_qoiABbpDA$> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy/



  *   draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement-05.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBmfTGaej450w8ANu2YseOhC3rBUD-MsLT3U6x8jJaLGxOM4YRcnPuw00cmNmmhdOchF_qqM5ZyhXg$>
CT

  *   draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-06.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBmfTGaej450w8ANu2YseOhC3rBUD-MsLT3U6x8jJaLGxOM4YRcnPuw00cmNmmhdOchF_qrCssNYSQ$>



  *   draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-02.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBmfTGaej450w8ANu2YseOhC3rBUD-MsLT3U6x8jJaLGxOM4YRcnPuw00cmNmmhdOchF_qo0bi9DoA$>)



  *   draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels-04

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBmfTGaej450w8ANu2YseOhC3rBUD-MsLT3U6x8jJaLGxOM4YRcnPuw00cmNmmhdOchF_qrUCkeTgA$>)


You may discuss adoption of one or both the main drafts (CAR or Classful-Transport (CT)) in your response, and the associate drafts.
A few caveats on your discussion:

  1.  Please do not worry whether the drafts belong in BESS or IDR.

Both BESS and IDR work on creating relevant quality standards in BGP,

and the chairs will work this out.



  1.  The IDR has spent time over 2020-2022 discussing these drafts.

For background information, see the following links below.

You can refer to these previous presentations or email discussions in your responses.



  1.  Please constrain your discussion to whether these drafts should be adopted.

I've started another email thread on whether path establishment/distribution

for a color (aka QOS/SLA/Transport Class) should be done via a

specific BGP route (i.e., per-color NLRI) rather than as per-color attributes on a route.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBmfTGaej450w8ANu2YseOhC3rBUD-MsLT3U6x8jJaLGxOM4YRcnPuw00cmNmmhdOchF_qp15-M6Ow$>

Questions (to consider) for these drafts:
Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair) posted a summary on March 21, 2022 that for
route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical,
but operationally different.
    ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBmfTGaej450w8ANu2YseOhC3rBUD-MsLT3U6x8jJaLGxOM4YRcnPuw00cmNmmhdOchF_qrnRliFMQ$>

  1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
  2.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
  3.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?