Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sat, 20 October 2018 17:17 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D129130DD1 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z1ior1CXvo6f for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4424C128766 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w9KHHTqj010638; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:17:29 +0100
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365C922044; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:17:29 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 211ED22042; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:17:29 +0100 (BST)
Received: from 950129200 (58.144-252-62.static.virginmediabusiness.co.uk [62.252.144.58] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w9KHHSS9005684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:17:28 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: idr@ietf.org
Cc: 'Robert Raszuk' <robert@raszuk.net>, ketant@cisco.com
References: <CAOj+MMH8A96TUM5qmNdX8j4CMzP51mHzwqasWvY0jOcjH5yBgw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMH8A96TUM5qmNdX8j4CMzP51mHzwqasWvY0jOcjH5yBgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:17:27 +0100
Message-ID: <008b01d46898$c6d2d2d0$54787870$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQGKzxTtl3Dp+qNLhgwQ+LdrmI+ZAaW7kMWw
X-Originating-IP: 62.252.144.58
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24168.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--2.639-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--2.639-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24168.001
X-TMASE-Result: 10--2.639500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: fgYTp5XatxbxIbpQ8BhdbIda6LjYIUbuofZV/2Xa0cLacTb0VZn3bkr2 4C3H1DCPU7/jRpYcW46TMi7co3zfVgx5TL3qCTgE3FqOVb7PDEJ9LQinZ4QefGWCfbzydb0gtEw Mol+sYkINXwNUB3oA790H8LFZNFG76sBnwpOylLMHR2Fgmej35nkndodAJPWA66dKinFkHAg+JZ Opa5qr5CNZwgck38UVPqBVxNfU8wNqPNcXZnIsMMse5lF7mkyur2jKO1ggSb4JAp5AN4f59Q+9N XX1QIs7ki/Tr7VHGv3uvg+PNpx4a37cGd19dSFd
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/hCqBU1CT77-mGqcTnmvyqmaO4ok>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 17:17:37 -0000
Robert sed: > Do we really want to grow this single BGP Attribute even more ? Time to remind everyone about Yakov's Shakespeare-over-BGP? IMHO, two fundamental concepts in BGP-LS are summarisation and stability. If someone wanted to have access to all of the IGP information and be updated every time anything changed, why would they not become a silent partner in the IGP? The thing BGP-LS should buy you is the fact that a BGP implementation is usually quite good at gathering and correlating routing information, and then applying policy to it. OTOH, it may be that this argument^H^H^H debate was lost some time ago. But maybe the thing here is for the WG to step back and decide what the point of BGP-LS is, how it should grow, and what controls should be in place. A topic for the f2f meeting? Best, Adrian
- [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Randy Bush
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Randy Bush
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] Growing BGP-LS Attribute Zhuangshunwan