[Idr] Transport Instance BGP

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

Many thx for your comments. I do agree with all of them and if there is
interest in IDR to proceed all of your points will be addressed.

Just a note on the first point you made ...

The proposal was shelved due to claims being made at and around Stockholm
IETF that all we need is working BGP multi sessions to demux specific
AFI/SAFI to a different session or different process within the box.

Well 10 years after I have not seen this to happen in *any* implementation.

Moreover in the mean time I see the proposals like BGP-LS which were
promised during WG processing and LC to be deployed separately from Routing
BGP (ex: dedicated RRs) in real deployments running on the same session and
on the same platforms (RRs) where LSDB is fighting for processing resources
with IP routes.

So here when we are discussing just using BGP as a transport because:

a) it is there
b) it takes everything (well used to till today :)
c) it is loop free distribution

my point of mentioning use of ti-bgp proposal (btw second choice if you go
back to the note - first being JSON format and CURL for this type of
distributions) was to at least decouple it hard from IP routing.

Many thx,
Robert.


On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:06 AM Greg Skinner <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> (I limited the recipients in my response in order to (hopefully) focus on
> the IDR-specific topics covered in the quoted text.)
>
> Regarding draft-raszuk-ti-bgp-01, if IDR has an interest in pursuing it
> again, I have some concerns:
>
>
>    - There were several issues raised
>    <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/minutes/idr.txt> during the IDR
>    WG meeting during IETF 75 that should be addressed, IMO.
>    - I found some other issues in the draft that weren’t brought up
>    during that meeting.  For example, in Section 5.5
>    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-ti-bgp-01#section-5.5>, it
>    is stated that "On the network side all today's BGP messages are send with
>    IP precedence value of Internetwork Control of 110000, which is used for
>    high-priority routing traffic.”  Is this true, even for open-source BGP
>    implementations?  I looked at the source code for three implementations
>    (Bird, FRR, and OpenBGPD), and was only able to confirm this for IPv4
>    OpenBGPD messages.
>    - One of the normative references, RFC 5226
>    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226>, has been obsoleted by RFC 8126
>    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126>.
>    - Several of the informative references have expired.
>    - The draft would require numerous editorial changes due to errors in
>    spelling, grammar, etc.
>
>
> Regards, Greg
>