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

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Jeff:

Sounds like a good idea, and an improvement on my idea.
We should  ask one of the LSR chairs to help us.

Sue

From: Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 6:20 PM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)

Sue, I'd suggest one of the IETF session discussions should be "how to optimize the path from LSR feature to BGP-LS encoding". While BGP-LS has a number of sins I'm not terribly fond of, it
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tLzZiYmZmYzU0NGYyZDQ3NGNlOGMwYzI2NDMwMDAxNzM5LzE2NTU4NTAwMTUuNTI=#key=896119c769281faf1234917e61023c24>  FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>

Sue,

I'd suggest one of the IETF session discussions should be "how to optimize the path from LSR feature to BGP-LS encoding".

While BGP-LS has a number of sins I'm not terribly fond of, it has a number of good properties as well.

This conversation, and similar ones, is partially around how do we deal with new LSR features and not add a lot of overhead to the process of getting a BGP-LS encoding for them.  A small number of items related to this:

- Is the encoding identical between IS-IS and OSPF?
- Are the code points common between those two protocols and could that be leveraged for BGP-LS?
- What encodings in IS-IS and OSPF are inappropriate to carry in BGP-LS, if any?

While I'm not an active participant in LSR, my observations over recent years since the two technologies were merged into the new LSR WG have been that more cooperation to avoid doing the work twice has been beneficial.  I suspect there's room to do the work well so it doesn't have to be done twice: LSR and BGP-LS.

-- Jeff



On Jun 21, 2022, at 5:48 PM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

[IDR Chair hat on]

There are three streams of discussion:

1. Whether we should consider alternatives to BGP-LS for BGP [Robert Raszuk, Tony P. , and others)
2.  Whether operators will deploy this addition to BGP-LS  (Operators should/will not (Aijun and Gert), Customers requesting (Tony P))
3.  Comments on the document (Ketan, Acee).

On #1:
For the alternative to BGP-LS,  I welcome short presentations for IETF-114.
IDR will probably only get 1 time slot at IETF.  If IDR WG chairs receive multiple
Presentations requests,  I’ll host an interim on the topic.

On #2, I ask that operators let me know if they are awaiting this addition.
On #3, I’m going to let the conversation between Ketan and the Jordan go a few more days.

I’ll close this call on 6/24.

Cheers, Sue


From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 8:32 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)



I support WG adoption – the corresponding LSR draft has completed WG last call and is awaiting AD review.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28 PM
To: IDR List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJw9jjkOgzAUBa-CXMcrNlvFVT5esEMC6NtpEuXuwU3KN9IbzYe88EGmhsRSzjxx7qBAQbCbR5Z8CezAlbvDcocQCo0eHE0O6bKe9JFpyinTgJzcGrJVz-7L9ZDCDN0oFc8R0Od5d-_I7PHk3bKEYI3WQTnda-sHK6zqdCuEkH07ctkZM5hrGGZUtfpqvUeAPJ8Bbe2p2FX8B98fXSc9Mw.MEQCIC05ilQNmHY6aCdwlqS05G7Jn3jGnOiELUl9oGp_E_8dAiAagfnR0y7EKOragEZ7x8BNkY8ZLGig63MlUkPo3GaBtA>

  This document defines one new BGP-LS (BGP Link-State) TLV for
   Flood Reflection to match the ISIS TLV for flood reduction.

   The draft is short (5 total pages).

Since this BGP-LS feature has been adopted by IS-IS,
Please consider


1.       Is there any technical difficulty with adding this to the BGP-LS code points?
2.   Is this draft ready for publication?
3.   Does this addition help operational networks.

Cheers, Sue Hares



_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=www.ietf.org&t=h.eJw9jssOwiAURH-lYW24QIE-Vv0VykPQFhrANNH475aNyzmZOZkPeuUNzR3ytR5lBjjPEwdbHU75DrsK264ibKHUEF2CYDK6dejZFtHWq0OJGOVEGRSvsi1LNG-PddpBrqtzWnDumOED13bURDPJe0IIHfoJqBRiFFcQWLBmtc368EqV5XBZtwcNm4b_4PsDx-g1yg.MEUCIHvppaEVL2sS326lfq_5koDJ_sHSphENB6SpDLcYNQenAiEAp3klePzwu92UV0f6wGlb0AwmWwPiU5VNkt4AoCbD2aY>