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

["Ianik Semco (isemco)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Susan,

Posting on behalf of Jose Liste:

---
From: Jose Liste <mailto:[e-mail]> 

Hello Susan,

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

As the WG embarks on the standardization of a new transport SAFI, it is crucial to start with the right base solution. This includes avoiding shortcuts and applying the lessons learnt from more that 20 years of deployment of its predecessor (BGP-LU).

In my opinion, BGP-CAR brings the right solution to elevate BGP to provide intent-aware inter-domain routing. Three key architectural advantages of BGP-CAR include:

- BGP-CAR provides a natural evolution of BGP-LU that shares the same operational and routing models of Seamless MPLS networks. BGP-CT's use of VPN semantics for transport prefixes is overkill and unnecessary.

- BGP-CAR provides automated steering and resolution based on color ext-communities applied to both service and transport routes. BGP-CT unnecessarily introduces different mechanisms like mapping communities that create operational overhead.

- BGP-CAR provides intent-aware multi-domain paths across one or more encapsulation types (e.g.; MPLS and SRv6). Consider multi-domain networks with domains of different encapsulation or even domains supporting multiple encapsulations. BGP-CT proposal does not provide clarity on how to achieve this and break away from an implicit assumption of MPLS encapsulation.

Now on to your questions:

 1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?

I reviewed Jeff H. note and believe it to be accurate. Thus, broadly speaking the proposals are functionally identical

 2.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
 
I am of the opinion that both customers and networking vendors would benefit from having a single solution to address a given problem/use case.

 3.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?
<n/a>

Thanks,
Jose

  

From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 2:17 PM
To: [e-mail]
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

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?