Re: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

[Julian Klaiber <[e-mail]>]

Hi Susan,


The two solutions cover the same use-cases, but there are protocol and important operational differences such as the ones I mentioned in my previous email.

I think the BGP CAR is the better solution to adopt and there is no need to adopt CT.


Thanks

Julian

________________________________
From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, 18 July 2022 15:23
To: Julian Klaiber <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt


Julian:



Thank you for your input.  If you have time, could you answer the following questions from this adoption call?



  1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
  2.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
  3.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?

Thank you,

Susan Hares



From: Julian Klaiber <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:14 AM
To: [e-mail]; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt





Hi everybody



To clarify my previous mail. I support the adoption of draft draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car.



Best regards

Julian

________________________________

From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Julian Klaiber <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, 18 July 2022 15:07
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt



Hi everybody



In my master's studies at the Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences, I'm working heavily with Segment Routing and also MPLS.



I think the coexistence of these two protocols is very important, especially when moving from MPLS to SR. Any BGP transport solution must recognize this and also support multiple types of transport natively. Efficiency and very importantly also scale should not be impacted. BGP-CAR is a solution to this problem.



I support therefore the adaption of this draft.



Best regards

Julian



________________________________

From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2022 20:16
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt



This begins a 2-week WG Adoption call (7/6/2022 to 7/20/2022) for the following drafts:

  *   draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car/)

  *   draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/)

The associated drafts may be useful in your consideration.

CAR:

  *   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/



  *   draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy/



  *   draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement-05.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/

CT

  *   draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-06.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/



  *   draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-02.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute/)



  *   draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels-04

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/)



You may discuss adoption of one or both the main drafts (CAR or Classful-Transport (CT)) in your response, and the associate drafts.

A few caveats on your discussion:

1.       Please do not worry whether the drafts belong in BESS or IDR.

Both BESS and IDR work on creating relevant quality standards in BGP,

and the chairs will work this out.



2.       The IDR has spent time over 2020-2022 discussing these drafts.

For background information, see the following links below.

You can refer to these previous presentations or email discussions in your responses.



3.       Please constrain your discussion to whether these drafts should be adopted.

I’ve started another email thread on whether path establishment/distribution

for a color (aka QOS/SLA/Transport Class) should be done via a

specific BGP route (i.e., per-color NLRI) rather than as per-color attributes on a route.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/



Questions (to consider) for these drafts:

Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair) posted a summary on March 21, 2022 that for

route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical,

but operationally different.

    ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

  1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
  2.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
  3.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?