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

[Tomasz Szewczyk <[e-mail]>]

Hello Susan,

For about 10 years the seamless MPLS services are implemented in Polish 
NREN (PIONIER).
Additionally the similar service architecture is  used among European 
NRENs connected to GEANT network.
Recently we had discussion about extending functionality of our 
interdomain MPLS services.
The BGP-CT proposal seems to answer our functional needs and it seems 
due to its properties/architecture (similar to most BGP VPN 
technologies) can be easily and quickly adopted by multiple NRENs.

best regards
Tomasz

W dniu 06.07.2022 o 20:16, Susan Hares pisze:
>
> 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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car/>) 
>
>
>   * draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt
>
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/>) 
>
>
> The associated drafts may be useful in your consideration.
>
> CAR:
>
>   * draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/>draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/
>
>   * draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/>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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/>
>
> CT
>
>   * draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-06.txt
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/>
>
>   * draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-02.txt
>
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute/>) 
>
>
>   * draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels-04
>
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/>)
>
> 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.
>
>  2. 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.
>
>  3. 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/
>
> 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://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?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

-- 
Tomasz Szewczyk
Poznańskie Centrum Superkomputerowo Sieciowe :: Pion Technologii Sieciowych
Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center :: Network Technology Division
tel: [phone]