Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-smn-idr-inter-domain-ibgp-00.txt

Hi,

Well your answer is now more confusing than the draft :)

First the draft is a Standards Track and it says:

*   This document relaxes these constraints specified in [RFC4271] and
 [RFC4364], allowing the building of Inter-domain L3VPN architectures
 with MP-IBGP (Multiprotocol internal BGP).*

If it is a Standards Track doc it presumably proposes changes to the
protocol or at least state machine.

Section 2 says:

*   The only difference compared to the original Inter-domain Option 10A
 is the peering between two domains: now, it is IBGP, and no longer   EBGP.*

There is nowhere mentioned that DBRs MUST be RRs from the BGP point of
view.

Section 3 says:

*   The only difference compared to the original Inter-domain Option 10B
 is the peering between two domains: now, it is IBGP, and no longer   EBGP.*

So if you consider to decouple concept of IGP domain from BGP domain what
the draft says is essentially what Randy pointed out that single BGP ASN
has been deployed across N number of IGP domains quite successfully in the
past.

So if you are not proposing any change to BGP protocol the draft should be
Informational and since it is focused on documenting specific deployment
model of RFC4364 should be moved to BESS.

If you are however proposing changes to BGP protocol or FSM please clearly
document them. Currently it is not clear what exactly those changes would
be.

Kind regards,
Robert

On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:10 PM Krzysztof Szarkowicz <kszarkowicz@juniper.net>
wrote:

> Hello Robert,
>
>
>
> Please see comments inline.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krzysztof Grzegorz Szarkowicz, JAWS PLM, Solutions Architect | Phone: +49
> 89 203 012 127
>
> Please consider my current time zone, when calling: CET (UTC+01:00)
>
> https://easylink.juniper.net/slicing
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Date: *Monday, 2023-01-09:Mo at 15:52
> *To: *Krzysztof Szarkowicz <kszarkowicz@juniper.net>, israel.means@att.com
> <israel.means@att.com>, Moshiko Nayman <mnayman@juniper.net>
> *Cc: *idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Fwd: I-D Action: draft-smn-idr-inter-domain-ibgp-00.txt
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hello Krzysiek and other co-authors,
>
>
>
> I have read yr draft with interest. Lecture of it triggered number below
> comments:
>
>
>
> * First fundamental - Concept of IGP domain and BGP domain are completely
> separate entities. It has been the case for many years that BGP domain can
> span number of IGP domains. In fact large global networks used (maybe still
> use) such model.
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof] Indeed. This draft focuses on ‘BGP domain that span number of
> IGP domains’.
>
>
>
>
>
> * Second fundamental - Essentially the entire draft is asking to propagate
> IBGP learned routes to other IBGP peers without enabling route reflection
> functionality. That is  a severely dangerous suggestion even if (hopefully)
> controlled  with a new per session knob.
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof] Not sure, from where you got it. It depends on the scale in
> given domain. In many places in the draft there are texts like ‘RR SHOULD
> be used’ or ‘RR is recommended’. We will review the text, and make it
> clearer.
>
>
>
> * Applying policy on IBGP sessions is with few exceptions a bad and
> dangerous thing. And likely between domains policy is your friend not an
> enemy.
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof] Could you be more precise here? In the draft, policies are
> applied on domain boundaries only.
>
>
>
> * Suggestion to keep term label-unicast to SAFI 4 only. SAFI 128 does not
> carry label unicast routes ... it carries VPN routes with VPN labels. If we
> start mixing terms overlay and underlay will be likely mixed.
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof] Yep. We will change it in the next revision.
>
>
>
> * I am not sure what exactly is the issue if each domain would actually
> have different ASN. We already have knobs not to set next hop self on EBGP
> sessions for option C. You are complaining about Local_Pref not being
> propagated but you have AIGP attribute or MED instead.  Not sure what is
> the issue with RTC ... it works fine between and within domains.
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof] There are deployments with domains having the same ASN. We are
> documenting it in this draft.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 3:26 PM
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-smn-idr-inter-domain-ibgp-00.txt
> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
>
>
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
>         Title           : Interconnecting domains with Multiprotocol IBGP
>         Authors         : Krzysztof G. Szarkowicz
>                           Israel Means
>                           Moshiko Nayman
>   Filename        : draft-smn-idr-inter-domain-ibgp-00.txt
>   Pages           : 13
>   Date            : 2023-01-09
>
> Abstract:
>    This document relaxes the constraints specified in [RFC4364] and
>    [RFC4456] allowing the building of Inter-domain L3VPN architecture
>    with Multiprotocol internal BGP.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smn-idr-inter-domain-ibgp/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smn-idr-inter-domain-ibgp/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GDaN5sViMDSS1JSsP-dPx22qGWnKoIf5HyXmvPIq94JpKiZJL7CpCbK6QaHkKywJaLlWsWwEUaYhy6gW8jYK$>
>
> There is also an HTML version available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-smn-idr-inter-domain-ibgp-00.html
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-smn-idr-inter-domain-ibgp-00.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GDaN5sViMDSS1JSsP-dPx22qGWnKoIf5HyXmvPIq94JpKiZJL7CpCbK6QaHkKywJaLlWsWwEUaYhy5orwexl$>
>
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org:
> :internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GDaN5sViMDSS1JSsP-dPx22qGWnKoIf5HyXmvPIq94JpKiZJL7CpCbK6QaHkKywJaLlWsWwEUaYhy670JqNn$>
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.ietf.org/shadow.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GDaN5sViMDSS1JSsP-dPx22qGWnKoIf5HyXmvPIq94JpKiZJL7CpCbK6QaHkKywJaLlWsWwEUaYhy_ANA8WX$>
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__ftp:/ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GDaN5sViMDSS1JSsP-dPx22qGWnKoIf5HyXmvPIq94JpKiZJL7CpCbK6QaHkKywJaLlWsWwEUaYhy3J8NyUc$>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>