Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Sent: 29 September 2022 16:50

Robert, Tom,

Inline please.

On 2022-09-29 17:45, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>  >  I did search the BGP protocol RFC and was struck by its absence
> except for the one RFC I mentioned.
>
> Well there is also rfc6198, rfc1745, rfc4798, rfc4216, rfc5152 etc ...
>
> Thank you,
> R.
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 5:33 PM tom petch <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     Sent: 29 September 2022 16:29
>
>     Hi Tom,
>
>      > Is the term ASBR well-understood in the context of BGP

ASBR is in the RFC-Editor's list of abbreviation and marked as
"well-known", which means that it does not have to expanded in a new RFC,

That said, if the authors think there is a value in expanding (or
explaining) they are free to do so.

<tp>
Loa

My point was not about whether or not it needed expanding - as a term I think ASBR is well-defined (at least for OSPF).  My search of the BGP protocol RFC, RFC4271 and its derivatives, only got the one hit I mentioned which made me wonder in the modern world where BGP has some resemblance to a dump truck.  the term clearly identifies which routers the text in the I-D applies to.

The text in the I-D says 
'If this node is a Route Reflector, ...'
'If this node is an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR),  '
That is it, no other options, it is either or for a BGP speaker.
Is this adequate for an implementation, that is my doubt.

Tom Petch

/Loa
>
>     It is a very well known term and widely used across many documents
>     in the context of BGP protocol. Sometimes you will see folks
>     abbreviating it to "BR", but the BGP speaker which talks EBGP is
>     almost always called Autonomous System Border Router (I used word
>     "almost" as there is an exception - confederations).
>
>     Robert
>     Thanks for that.  If the author used EBGP, I would have known what
>     he meant!  I did search the BGP protocol RFC and was struck by its
>     absence except for the one RFC I mentioned.  In OSPF it is well
>     defined and I would not have commented on it.
>
>     Tom Petch
>
>     Thx,
>     Robert.
>
>
>
>     On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:23 AM tom petch <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>     From: Idr <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> on behalf of Susan Hares
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     Sent: 27 September 2022 18:30
>
>     This begins a 2 week WG adoption and IPR call for
>     draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt.
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm/>
>
>     <tp>
>     The protocol depends in part on whether or not a router is an ASBR.
>     I am used to seeing that term used in the context of OSPF and not of
>     BGP.  I did find a usage in RFC7705 but note that that RFC felt it
>     necessary to explain what an ASBR was.  Is the term ASBR
>     well-understood in the context of BGP (as opposed to OSPF)?
>
>     I find the IANA Considerations imprecise.  It asks for a new
>     sub-type in a registry whose name is not present in IANA; there is
>     one that is close (but no cigar).
>
>     Likewise, it talks of 'registry of the "BGP Extended Communities"
>     registry'.  This is wrong on two counts.  A registry is part of a
>     registry group, not part of a registry (prior to recent discussions
>     on the Last Call list I would have just said 'group').  Second,
>     there are no BGP registry groups and that identifier does not appear
>     anywhere on the IANA website AFAICT.
>
>     Tom Petch
>
>     The authors should respond to this email with an IPR statement.
>
>     The WG should consider in their discussion:
>     1) Will this new  transitive extended community help
>     in operational networks?
>
>     2) What conflicts does this new Extended Community have
>     with other functions in general BGP route distribution or
>     VPNs (EVPN, IPVPN)?
>
>     3) do you have any concern about the text in the draft?
>
>     Cheerily, Sue
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Idr mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

--
Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]