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

[Ahmed Bashandy <[e-mail]>]

I support the adoption ofdraft-dskc-bess-bgp-car

BGP CAR adheres to the SR architecture in the use of the color extended
community for steering and its data model. At the same time it has
operational consistency with BGP-LU which has been used in seamless MPLS by
many operators.

It also takes into account learnings from experience to address many
limitations of the current BGP SAFIs


For the questions

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

The design choices are different,  which matter


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

We should just have one draft



Thanks

Ahmed



On Wed, Jul 6, 2022, 11:17 AM Susan Hares <[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/)
>
>    - 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.
>
>
>
>    1. 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.
>
>
>
>    1. 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?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idrt
>