Re: [Idr] Request to adopt draft-heitz-idr-large-community - Working Group Adoption call (9/6 to 9/20)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

As some folks already observed also my observation is that we are mixing
few different topics within this discussions on new BGP communities format.

- One is how to design an engine
- The other how to design the cockpit
- And now third one pop-ed out how to drive/fly it ...

How to design an engine is the topic for IDR WG.

How to design the user/pilot/driver interface is the topic for NETCONF,
OPENCONFIG, I2RS or vendors CLI/API.

How to drive/fly is the topic for all the *NOGs/BCPs.

All of the above are very important topics, but quite different and
orthogonal.

And the apparent problem seems to be pretty common believe that if we
follow 20 years old RFC1997 design of the two cylinder engine and only add
two more cylinders to it ignoring the lessons learned via last 20 years
everything else will stay the same.

Oh well ... let's see. But let's notice that via all of those years number
of proposals in BGP already uses TLVs and sub-TLVs (example: RFC7752) and
that today's cockpits already have to be able to handle that - unless we
really start to simplify BGP and start moving all of those modern BGP
extensions to historic.

Cheers,
R.


On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Alexander Azimov <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> From my perspective main dispute here is between flexibility and
> simplicity. Engineers love flexibility, don't we? But flexibility without
> wisdom will bring troubles: I think today BGP needs simplification of
> configuration process and strict rules even more than flexibility. I do
> support adoption of this draft, but I would like to see specification of
> common usages for 32:32:32 as strict as possible (with SHOULD statement)
> included in this draft. Otherwise we will still face with results of today
> flexibility (AS number is filtered):
>