Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 (9/6/2022 to 9/20/2022)

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue, Aijun, Robert,

If it helps in gauging consensus, I support adoption of draft-scudder-entropy-label-01 for the same reasons as Robert. The progression of ietf-idr-next-hop-capability is a separate matter which should be discussed in a separate thread.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:09 AM
To: Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
Cc: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>, IDR List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 (9/6/2022 to 9/20/2022)

Aijun,

Work on RFC6790 started in 2008.

Mean time there are real networks running which need signalling solutions. This is not green field nor IETF only game to produce RFCs.

There are practical aspects of protocol extensions addressing real needs. And even if I-D.ietf-idr-next-hop-capability would become an RFC tomorrow it is non-transitive so not only upgrade to egress and ingress is needed but also BGP RRs RSs ASBRs with no-next-hop-self etc ... would need to recognize it in order to propagate it.

Lastly, I am not sure what is the time unit - when you are referring to "hurry" in IDR WG :)

Best,
Robert

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:58 PM Aijun Wang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi, Robert:

Then for the advertisement of such capabilities, the journey will be:
1) RFC6790
2) RFC 7447(depreciated RFC6790)
3) RFC****(depeciated RFC7447 again, based on the final document of draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01)
4) RFC####(depeciated RFC**** again, based on the final document of [I-D.ietf-idr-next-hop-capability]

Can the IDR experts spend their energies in more efficient manners?

Aijun Wang
China Telecom


On Sep 28, 2022, at 17:14, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Aijun,

Signalling capability to process entropy labels IMO should be signalled in a transitive manner. Requirement that BGP nodes like RRs which do not modify the next hop understand the attribute is not justified.

On that basis alone I think the proposed document should progress. The fact that it evolved with time from RFC6790 and got deployed is another factor.

If/when next-hop-capability adds transitive option and get's deployed I guess this doc could be moved to historical however for now it attempts to address real deployments by allocating valid codepoint for it.

Thx,
R.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 2:23 AM Aijun Wang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi, Sue:

Want to ask where are the consensus on the list for this draft? Given this draft has contradicted with the existing WG draft which has been pointed out by several several service providers?
As also mentioned in your list questions, there is necessary to discuss the short term and long term improvements of BGP next hop in the coming interim meeting, then what’s the reason to adopt this document in hurry?

Aijun Wang
China Telecom


On Sep 28, 2022, at 01:14, Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
The chairs have reviewed the IDR WG discussion and feedback from implementers on draft-ietf-idr-entropy-label-01.txt.

The consensus from this review is that we should:
1) adopt draft-scudder-idr-entropy-label-01 as
draft-ietf-idr-entropy-label-01


2) Hold a discussion of BGP Next-Hop technology to discuss
the needs for current and future standards on BGP Next Hop.

During this interim we will discuss the open proposals for
BGP Next HOPS to determine what technology goes forward
toward standardization.

IDR needs the feedback from implementers and operators
about the short term and long-term improvements to
BGP Next hop.

Cheerily, Sue
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr