Re: [Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team

Randy Bush <> Thu, 05 December 2019 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC67F1201A3 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:43:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQo2N4qDGyee for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:43:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B1C9120168 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:43:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <>) id 1iczq8-0003ib-4W; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 22:43:16 +0000
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:43:15 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
Cc: idr wg <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 22:43:20 -0000

> I agree with Roberts’ point. Prior to crafting or selecting a draft as
> the basis for a proposal the design team should clearly articulate the
> scope, use cases and requirements that need to be addressed. IMO
> stating that in an informational RFC is a good way to ensure that all
> stakeholders are in agreement as to what the eventual
> specification/draft addresses, and as important does not address.

while i am tempted to agree with you, i see it from a different vector.

imiho, if we agreed to constrain solutions to the absolute minimal
mechanism, we might be able to cover a significant subset of clos, ibgp,
inter-provider, and ixp.

if we do not constrain to the minimial mechanism, we will make a complex
and disgusting mess of boiling the ocean on {pick any one of the above}.

i think it was tony hoare who said something such as

   there are two kinds of standards,
     - the intersection of what everybody *must* have
     - the union of what everybody thinks they could want