Re: [Idr] Adoption Call on DT document (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-00.txt) [3/10/2021 to 3/31/2021]

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Wed, 17 March 2021 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B883A0E3A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jMCoRLvR-cVQ for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E9A93A0D69 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 358441C0245; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:44:28 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Susan Hares'" <shares@ndzh.com>, <idr@ietf.org>
References: <010401d715d7$b061cb70$11256250$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <010401d715d7$b061cb70$11256250$@ndzh.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:44:26 +0800
Message-ID: <006701d71b09$bd360a50$37a21ef0$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0068_01D71B4C.CB5AD0F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKF0Sqi7L9fwi3oi4zYZ6mdIDXcb6kqZ/Vw
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZHR5DQ01KT0lISE4YVkpNSk5CTEtNTUNIQkxVEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR 0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS0JITVVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6PEk6ETo*Ej8XNUhMKDg4NxcV Iz0wCw9VSlVKTUpOQkxLTU1DTU1JVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUlKSE9NNwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a783f5b8effd993kuws358441c0245
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YBUbfvosa_6FoLprQHcXYIWK0Jw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption Call on DT document (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-00.txt) [3/10/2021 to 3/31/2021]
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:44:40 -0000

Hi, Susan:

 

Supports it adoption.

 

My considerations for your questions are the followings:

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: idr-bounces@ietf.org <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:04 AM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] Adoption Call on DT document
(draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-00.txt) [3/10/2021 to 3/31/2021]

 

Greetings: 

 

This is an adoption/feedback call for the DT team document:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations/

 

This call for comments will run for 3 weeks. 

 

In your feedback please let us know: 

 

1) do you think this represents a good set of requirements for bgp autoconf
protocol in the data center? 

[WAJ] Yes, I think it analyses clearly the process and necessary stages of
bgp autoconf.

 

2) Do you think the document should remove any requirements or add an
requirements?  

[WAJ] The consideration for device role should be removed. The reasons are
the followings:

1) There is no standard definition of the device role.

2) BGP works in peer to peer model. 

3) BGP within the datacenter is mainly used for the underlay network
connection. If there is no IGP, every device within the DC should be
connected via BGP.

 

[WAJ] Should consider adding the “Passive Interface” concept on the
devices, to filter the sending of BGP autoconf packet to the customer facing
interfaces.

[WAJ] Should consider the definition of IP address space and AS number
space, from which each device can get its own assignment automatically
without conflict. 

 

3) Do you think the review of the protocols should be moved to another
document? 

[WAJ] Leave them in the current Appendix part can help the user to have a
quick review of the current approaches in different layers.

 

4) Should a IDR DT create the requirements for non-Data Center deployments
prior to starting work on a BGP auto-configuration protocol? If so, should a
DT start these requirements in parallel? 

[WAJ] It seems the necessary for the non-Data center deployment is not
emergent. 

 

Cheers, Sue Hares