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

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Deepak:

Thank  you for responding to the adoption call to give your viewpoint on adoption.
If you have time, would you also answer the following additional questions:

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?
Cheers, Sue


From: Deepak Gowda <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2022 1:39 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>; Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <kaliraj=[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

Hi: BGP CT concepts are much similar to BGP L3VPN and the existing BGP VPN infra structure can be used to implement this. I extend my support on adopting BGT CT. Regards Deepak J From: Idr <idr-bou
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tL2RiMjk5M2U5MDQ0MWMwNDc3MmI3MGU3NTMwN2JhYzhlLzE2NTc0MzE1NDMuOA==#key=6b6679e9bf388bf42c49ad2b9ea73854>  FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>

Hi:

BGP CT concepts are much similar to BGP L3VPN and the existing BGP VPN infra structure can be used to implement this. I extend my support on adopting BGT CT.

Regards
Deepak J

From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 10 July 2022 00:00
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <kaliraj=[e-mail]<mailto:kaliraj=[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

External Email: Use caution in opening links or attachments.
Kaliraj:

Thank you for promptly responding to me and
letting me know your views on these three questions.

After we hear from a few more people on CAR/CT Q1 (question 1) over the weekend,
may I ask additional questions on  the similarities and
differences between the two drafts?

Cheers, Sue

From: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 2:33 PM
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <kaliraj=[e-mail]<mailto:kaliraj=[e-mail]>>; Susan Hares <[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 Sue,

I missed responding to these three specific questions.

IMHO, because below considerations looked at route-resolution and route origination/propagation
aspects of the two approaches, they looked identical.

But if you look closer, there are other aspects like how service-mapping is performed, BGP CT provides more functionality.

The main differences are

  *   The use of 'resolution scheme' indirection between the routes and transport-class tunnels
  *   The use of route-targets to draw venn diagrams of transport-class domains
That allows flexible expression of intent, and handling non-agreeing color domains gracefully.

Because BGP CT is handling superset of use-cases handled by CAR, adopting CT alone will suffice.

Adopting both is not required.

Thanks
Kaliraj
From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <kaliraj=[e-mail]<mailto:kaliraj=[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, July 8, 2022 at 10:12 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [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
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://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com&t=h.eJxtUttu4jAQ_ZUWKX3aDb4lTipV2zYNJUBAdKGwvCAndkjIxSgJDbDaf1-b7sM-VLJHnjNnjjWX371jXfTub3pp2x6a-36_YiVEZsMSUWRV3piHWrYibjNZmfLYFlLmZizL_g-V9nDNMfCTgQbqKISLRFSN0AwFfGBlttv_WCXLClbHafYhzEy0iSnrnYI1pKONdjJeKytsd_rG3QyxV7Bangb5z9RP5sNNM5RXUQM_395O_dY-h2z2fZffvthjtPE302JUFP5yVsrLtrOG292uO7PSP5f4EkRsN8lXi6X15pzSkSXbLjxZwcY_FovLeuOky1NWh6Pz-fC6nxuI3HHWsgdgGdQDUBm-kx1nBgHi1NaiFJVoO1mrFulqqRezGGBGsENFTBCBFEQUOJzZkLsQA0dRktiJUZTYLiScxDCJsIWIzVzGI4cCDPRP_66NqYtcx0HYsolrA4oUuKzySnaVei1Wg0P0umkizB1xHq2CvcxCj3ST_VMXvjxlE28019g7Ko7hJdD-8yIL7CCHKVt12l-_e4EdVsDAL0oQAaC__Tx3zbX043DqjpuiXs-H4zL0Jvm-gZNfPn1PL7MgyVPhxWs2VeMYzNpYydzVohH1h-APoPftppfrtVJNUjOGwHJU1ajfpEyRHit-Sa9rxCPkuli4gBAYA0IpUk0T1MKARix2RB_aFiUYWgSbjhYVWvRzEo9fzEFTuKZ8FfvzF0B066A.MEYCIQDLfSH2iSUEbNHdZ6JbC10ovLIQOqUheelqbI04pGIJ4wIhAKh3NvxsInMKemO95jGlzD7-efTPmlsvYY_A4Cgdae_s>

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?


Juniper Business Use Only