Re: [Idr] Transport Instance BGP

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

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

Gyan


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:48 AM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> > Please review this draft and let Robert and myself know if its something
>> > worth reviving.
>> >
>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-ti-bgp-01
>>
>> imiho, there are a lot of things currently called "routing related" i
>> would throw on the other side of that wall.
>>
>> randy
>>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



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