Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

Again, speaking to the general case... why should it ever be constrained?
> If the feature exists in the IGP, being able to represent it in BGP-LS is
> probably reasonable.
>

Is there any technical reason to send point to point information over a
point 2 multipoint (aka spray) protocol ?

Is there any benefit for BGP to take that load on its shoulders ?

Is this done purely for convinvence of reusing established by BGP TCP
session ? IMHO poor justification.

Are you proposing to bend IDR WG rules and start allowing BGP
protocol extensions without two shipping interoperable implementations and
a documented implementation report ? Note that LSR WG does not have such a
bar.

Is the need for p2p NNI any different then intradomain p2p data
distribution ?

Where in the BGP protocol state machine do we have a rate limit to capping
accepted data (aka churn) from OSPF or ISIS protocols ?

Note - I am asking you those questions targeting yourself in both roles -
IDR WG member and IDR WG co-chair.

Many thx,
Robert.