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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gyan,

May I ask how are your opinions presented in this discussion related to the
real Verizon network ?

I am asking based on the stated support for BGP-CAR solution by Verizon
Fellow:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PKkqHGQYlrU2or3Af3ABbODq24I/

Are your opinions carry real operational meaning or are they just coming
from individual and CT draft co-author ?

Many thx,
R.


On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 6:17 PM Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi Miya
>
> Comment in-line
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 12:41 PM Miya Kohno <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> Indeed. I wanted to mention the difference in starting points, but the
>> classification was a bit misleading.
>> BGP CAR works equally well over MPLS , and in fact can work over RSVP-TE
>> too.
>>
>> >BGP-CT  - of legacy data and control plane origin
>>
>
>       Gyan> I would not call using L3 IP VPN semantics legacy as it is a
> proven technology that works very well has been used in the past for VPN
> overlay and will continue to be used in the distant future with SR and
> beyond technologies.  L3 IP VPN technologies are far from being legacy or
> deprecated.  We are seeing the technology being used in other areas such as
> SD WAN and now at the transport layer due to its proven track record for
> operators.
> BGP-CT control plane applies to existing technologies as well as all
> future technologies.
>
> >BGP-CAR - modern data plane + extensibility
>>
>> Completely agree.
>>
>> Miya
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:40 AM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Miya & WG,
>>>
>>> > Basically yes. But I would say they have different origins. BGP-CT is
>>> MPLS-native, whereas BGP-CAR is SR-native.
>>>
>>> How about SR-MPLS ? Do you classify it under MPLS or under SR :) ?
>>>
>>> Don't you think CAR would be a good fit as well even for MPLS customers
>>> especially those LDP free and/or RSVP-TE free ?
>>>
>>> I would rather classify the two proposals a bit differently:
>>>
>>> BGP-CT  - of legacy data and control plane origin
>>>
>>> BGP-CAR - modern data plane + extensibility
>>>
>>> The choice is simple ...
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Robert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 4:43 PM Miya Kohno <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Sue,
>>>>
>>>> I support the adoption of BGP-CAR.
>>>>
>>>> > 1. Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally
>>>> identical?
>>>>
>>>> Basically yes. But I would say they have different origins. BGP-CT is
>>>> MPLS-native, whereas BGP-CAR is SR-native.
>>>> From the SR/SRv6 operation point of view, CAR is simpler, more
>>>> scalable/extensible and more consistent with SR Policy.  BGP-CT's
>>>> indirection and the need for the Mapping Community seems unnecessarily
>>>> complex.
>>>>
>>>> > 2. If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational
>>>> difference encourage us to have two drafts?
>>>>
>>>> One draft is preferable. And BGP-CAR is a more natural extension,
>>>> especially for SR/SRv6, which is characterized by simplicity.
>>>>
>>>> > 3. If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to
>>>> have one or two drafts adopted?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Miya
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:17 AM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Idr mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Idr mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>