Re: [Idr] Transport Instance BGP

Gyan Mishra <> Fri, 31 July 2020 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7584B3A0BFA for <>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n3sfrROWoYl5 for <>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91A9F3A0BF4 for <>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p8so8982005vsm.12 for <>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DBELyKru+zfiSkd7PadHnRyYOPUaUOM7NcPXFb32gek=; b=RRqgt1ExoSw2MIX1lEdOq46H0k6hq/A6An/D/g22D0NOETrKZFTlTQfRgSzpxMeKod jZs1h1ZTwKdLnOwxg/MZ/9wKYdD/3xxUHzweyqicCs6wfx0pxIm1OLNPdseQOC56KhyZ s8tS2ymaY+9O3JOtQMgH5MAg1ffYaUvFlk7gOJfE1twuNWB+lGa6d6F34bZMD5DkIgpB uG75TG3mWNST+pjNTaP0kCa1+7ph4IJacJ+j/3CIfBz1VxoW15JhpR4cruXYUCgnGXet ycyoDZedVfZ26r6IwPpwX1NHMkYZ7h6Kh5FKqXLXbDBKi/Dzul8iGdSrFGo3G2zdsKPw 4/tw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DBELyKru+zfiSkd7PadHnRyYOPUaUOM7NcPXFb32gek=; b=XFoKXOji5QtkA0FGZrsPxvJDymcWKrmTe1tbmpJcro3pWV7Mt/EH+jvblx/se9s2zN Zqw4IJJ6O2SSCJRBPBM/I3oY4V83PvpH3q4XE3Ww2df8o6dB8sxeJDpECADz/DXaPi7M i022fZ98oZRV0JIOqKnGW/Y0Z8r57sFQLY5GvLVxhOk9jwTvqRsAlfv++8WGTPbFpoiW UGEzBMLreES0+uZv5MSfkXWYdmq3+N/e5uqoV38BZubJWBk0OXUhPeAfGf+S8KNw+lCo 9W6QdhwUfaImhTpERRSuIZbHgEhZx9JDsKxyRSXZmp3ph4rrEFYm878/B8H5J5pBktTv aPhg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530afQkm3WPtH9WkiJe8CttPSj1aSICwsF2QeoS0Wp1ZfwnxIM2t yPi+vfUCgLis35k1i2q/GkkXX+6ITaRoLEH/djU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwsasqUmrKIXmZ8y3vXQg72SZsewQTYT7R+E8UYRFXCRyzCc5DLxAnSL/kgYCHRnWtT8SgHxilrjpTY+0CdA1w=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:b34a:: with SMTP id b10mr4634020vsm.47.1596230767567; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Gyan Mishra <>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 17:25:56 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Robert Raszuk <>
Cc: Greg Skinner <>, Randy Bush <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e167b805abc36fef"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Transport Instance BGP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 21:26:10 -0000

Sounds like plan.

I like the win-win for BGP.👍

Those two camps Service Provider and  Enterprise are closely aligning and
converging as a major the variable is size, and if the private closed
domain is a worldwide massive network, they are very close to being
completely aligned as is the case with Verizon and maybe other Tier 1 and
Tier 2 providers.  Of course the closed domain bar can swing from tiny to
massive which is your point. Agreed.

I agree on the former however the IETF has individual representation from
all camps thus the world we live in and cannot satisfy everyone but the bar
can swing from small to large.  Finding the happy medium is a challenge but
that is part of our job in achieving WG consensus and IETF adoption on any
protocol specification.

That being said from an IETF and protocol development perspective you have
to think of the trickle down of the protocol specifications as it applies
to all vendors and all routers switches appliances you name it that runs
any protocol or specification developed - ospf Isis BGP MPLS SR etc.

Since that protocol specification developed by the IETF can sit on a tiny
CPE box running BGP MPLS SR or even BIER or commodify incumbent hardware
vendor Service Provider massive OTN box with high 400G density, or NFV
server - router VNFs, or 1RU pizza box white box running disaggregated
software from incumbent commodity vendor, the IETF standard is a standard
for all implementation of the protocol specification independent of
hardware mode or brand big or small it applies to every vendor development
and implementing software.

Kind Regards


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:48 AM Robert Raszuk <> wrote:

> Very true ... we could always rename it to "Internet routing related"
> In fact this should be win-win for both ... more stable Internet on one
> hand and lower bar for new twicks and mangling with BESS like or NETCONF
> like insertions to essentially a p2mp path vector protocol.
> In fact we see it more and more these days (example SRv6-NP long
> discussions) where Internet engineering and stability and close domain
> network design and engineering do not align. They are very different and
> trying to either stretch one or trim the other what we see in number of
> IETF WGs is just not the right thing to do.
> One would think that IETF as the name says is about the former ... but if
> we see RFCs and drafts maybe just a small percentage of them indicates so.
> Almost like the "I" there stands for IP and not Internet ....
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:17 AM Randy Bush <> wrote:
>> > Please review this draft and let Robert and myself know if its something
>> > worth reviving.
>> >
>> >
>> imiho, there are a lot of things currently called "routing related" i
>> would throw on the other side of that wall.
>> randy
> --


*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD