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

[Carmine Scarpitta <[e-mail]>]

Hi Everyone,

I'm Carmine Scarpitta, a PhD Student at the University of Rome "Tor 
Vergata". I'm working on the implementation of BGP SRv6 L3VPN in FRR and 
SONiC.

I support the adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car.

BGP introduced a very simple and efficient operational model for 
multi-domain and multi-AS routing. BGP CAR adheres to the same routing 
model and proposes a mechanism to signal the intent-aware paths across a 
multi-domain transport network.


Il 06/07/22 20:16, Susan Hares ha scritto:
>
> 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/)
>
>   * draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt
>
> (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/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/
>
>   * draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18
>
> 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/
>
> CT
>
>   * draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-06.txt
>
> 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/) 
>
>
>   * draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels-04
>
> (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/
>
>  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?
>