IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com> Sat, 16 July 2022 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bedard.phil@gmail.com>
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 C88CAC14F74C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 07:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5HPTaeocq-IO for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 07:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78E9CC14F739 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 07:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id q16so3765643pgq.6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 07:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=q7PbsUoMYkUif7gHSyt/AOfBFuYz0dC2wqLJc0Owf18=; b=hHOn4tSx76qZ7otvuIKSjNE+1iKzU6yA2V9UmX4w8B5ZnuyQztIBifpD2E/RbynfwS mgWYC11MrZDtCPw/opR/W6cdRlrZUISPCj8IUHyraNsxuE3znhWB2c9zKprkcVH8qceH CVVIBfB/V6v4icZVnJ9/ZeCivFxKTW8FosY1SaVxFTA/uEQeo0F33bqUVs0g+ms/Q+S4 GQKBz43pLUCqlz4ZwNlOgvb4CcfINdxlaYzSqSLE2T9aB2XoGKM6f84mvqLi6KYITLtt /j6kci4kLjuy/2tA2FwcCPdAUeR5Jqmt5Lmhu9+A0cCVmNZKofJhIgsIsDQR5cQ/Gb5c PEiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=q7PbsUoMYkUif7gHSyt/AOfBFuYz0dC2wqLJc0Owf18=; b=grrmFZXvJjZ3vaiuCM7X5j9sEevNCjXetC66QC1jJWK/tpXLIzw8v8OAHWSL+FE34f w6pEJydmk7lpIbhMNwcdYGyTrh8FFvppj2jLv5pyUmgD0DM+kZncYWAhVL3isVBqbunz TlCn6CysPVY2KvvwRydUD7emqKy8t0+O9i1MzamVrHRi/3BqtrvVrFbgeD8rnbNgJei5 5sIZfNfCQhRdqeaZxbuwDzZcfbWxCzj3K/wJzSYtsmK+S5UomJAmdgKzWV1DNtU45QXo zJXFuQf6edF6FNW+MOpT5fWUawAdlk/G1xXS3CxtNkqDbDIw80U17ntPFGBEaEg1wybe n1/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+k8u3aj4ax4Ml904IXda7R6HSkokIdx8MiKAlQsEHCHSqnWI+i 1wWN7QatEZLAq1N35Cp6Mp+XLYf4lxQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1uufXnHsDP/96IGGehXY3kQaah5tK4bR1W85BpSkJHs3CiqJrqyxH7rKXXOwOAwaGzatHJxvQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:688a:0:b0:412:6728:4bf3 with SMTP id d132-20020a63688a000000b0041267284bf3mr17311986pgc.339.1657983556287; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 07:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MWHPR18MB1280.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([2603:1036:120:26::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o9-20020aa79789000000b005254d376beasm5948256pfp.6.2022.07.16.07.59.14 for <idr@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 16 Jul 2022 07:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [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
Thread-Index: AdiRZF6pZwLgwQkES7CJqFxAHOwm7QHvUedl
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 14:59:09 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR18MB1280DA296FD816F8344061A9F78A9@MWHPR18MB1280.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BYAPR08MB48725C453611F6A21F255295B3809@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR08MB48725C453611F6A21F255295B3809@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR18MB1280DA296FD816F8344061A9F78A9MWHPR18MB1280namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/RGJ_qEI9-OKVs7fhCYL7dVmvrJM>
Subject: 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
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 14:59:21 -0000

Hi Susan,
I support adoption of the BGP CAR draft.
>From a former operator perspective, I would rather see a modern approach to solving the use case.  I do not believe re-using technology from existing L3VPN makes BGP-CT easier to operate or deploy, it adds unnecessary complexity and encumbers it with the existing technical issues of L3VPN.   A solution following more closely to the existing seamless MPLS solution using BGP-LU makes sense.
The base constructs should not be tie to a specific data plane like MPLS, any encoding/encapsulation should natively support multiple data plane types.
SR/SRv6 are seeing widespread adoption with the color community defining intent.  This same color community should be carried through to a multi-domain solution.  Having an additional field and mapping adds complexity and is prone to errors.
To answer Jeff’s questions:

  1.  Yes, these drafts deliver the same high level function
  2.  We ideally should have one draft

Thanks,
Phil
From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 2:17 PM
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>
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
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/

  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?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email