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

[Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail]>]

Hello Susan,

I am voting for adoption of BGP-CT, and rejection on BGP-CAR.

BGP-CT introduces the concept of transports classes, which allow grouping of tunnels (not only BGP-CT, but all sort tunnels, like RSVP-TE, SR-TE, SRv6-TE, FA, …) with similar characteristics (e.g., latency optimized tunnels) into common transport class, represented by a transport RIB. This simplifies considerably the operations, IMHO. Resolution policies allow to define flexible failover mechanisms, where the operator has full flexibility to define, what should happen if a tunnel with specific color is not available.

Further BGP-CT leverages on well proven, widely deployed  NLRI encoding, extended with additional attributes to carry the the color.

In general, BGP-CT is easy to understand, and easy to operate, and smoothly integrates into existing deployments.



1. Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?

Yes Their are in practice providing similar functionality.


2. If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts? 

Yes. We should have just one draft and it should be BGP-CT (not BGP-CAR)


3. If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?

n/a


Regards,
Krzysztof

> On 2022 -Jul-06, at 20:16, Susan Hares <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 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/ <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/ <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/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/
>  
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ <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/ <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/ <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/ <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/ <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:
> 
> 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.
>  
> 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.  
>  
> 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/ <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/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/>
> Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
> If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts? 
> If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>