From nobody Tue Mar 23 08:58:28 2021 Return-Path: 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 E8C543A1314 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:58:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net 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 3BozOeX9TqGi for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6405B3A130B for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id f26so26287565ljp.8 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:58:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6JQF2e5kd56WYBeg6Blz/UWo17u+yJdQrR6QGnn50Mo=; b=XVMWlSDhYZNruxHFmAmaIc+Xq+eYcBioML6OwNz243C5o8VuYM6HrSvP8VkqmYDtMZ pUACleODtP5PVX/94RqOp/4X6H1d4nhp8eVAh1W99ZNx6F2/jmSix/k1CTw1W27MmwCV XaUQpDcLc91ZgwmmtGoUm8w9VEDdOK+UXIVhNgHbtkZduli3CQMTZEJmhxNZvzRkMf0d oHo6YTYW78raU/tDe8iFy5P295gXjXBSd4XYK/KLw7XR0gFdjkebusAKSyRDQWFXkqgq 3xTl3inRGnHd0aluooHjSXfIo7ez3VA5hlXPOefwXKkj6rrR/QTQ1089Giy2wauk+NsN bZZw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6JQF2e5kd56WYBeg6Blz/UWo17u+yJdQrR6QGnn50Mo=; b=Q2kM+CcIlw/vCWB4GKuFF3gJoe8lA1xq4EknsBWXhCQq+KPlZKXVlAJtTik9/gHl6O Kxm5DKXjGWNwoC3sl5HyKZWs/pjAGJD6WyuZYU/V/DGxjD9EIUfqmfICCXT8qSlA7u/x BUuz8Je6LzeZuJBjbTghXZlR/VLWD9SL3TPyQaevNUY9IuRQBvXVaNoSmE0hyWBS1WP9 MvASQMz5SyoLTpZ4RpDf1esAyNdOOyBiD1Z9nSQanhySyn/LvMe0JqrJD6JUYyUjfQvn PjQNTdcgAyyGrxNEwnLcA3zP7XBDY/61IZfIPt2LtS/M23PzMNubUUjKnJie91bS9dpN 65Qw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532PNUyzQJH7ZBRzWTb/xAqabT+Leui2YlRENCfoJz3E19taS1IX B3aXag+sA4XzUvU7fSFIA7xaIX8e5nwwagh28c9A6AQvdYn6mOQS X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxiPOeg+HorY8lwN/0jqh3jmHIGWve87/ar7MOhkdEga06CU9iLIimDSRsw3SFCUKJbElKjjQaMFpvEbUbTDbA= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:87c9:: with SMTP id v9mr3515582ljj.321.1616515099714; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:58:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210319143448.GM29692@pfrc.org> <20210319144657.GO29692@pfrc.org> <20210319152832.GP29692@pfrc.org> <20210323120515.GA31047@pfrc.org> <20210323150837.GB31047@pfrc.org> <20210323160251.GE31047@pfrc.org> In-Reply-To: <20210323160251.GE31047@pfrc.org> From: Robert Raszuk Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 16:58:08 +0100 Message-ID: To: Jeffrey Haas Cc: "Fomin, Sergey (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" , "idr@ietf.org" , "Acee Lindem (acee)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004afcd405be36403f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP Auto-Discovery Protocol State Requirements X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:58:27 -0000 --0000000000004afcd405be36403f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > The position I have been taking is figuring out what is required for BGP > auto-configuration. Data center is the specific scenario we are solving > for > right now. The working group may take on non-data center cases as future > work. The analysis discussion is being used to refine what state is > required for each of the scenarios. And I think this is where the confusion is coming from. The document is about DC but it includes lots of additional baggage which in view of number of people is not required for the DC auto discovery. I guess in the best intentions you added all additional data there thinking ahead and planning to use the same mechanism for any BGP auto discovery scenario which was precisely agreed not to be a goal of this document to start with. So my little suggestion is to scope this to DC. If we end up with two different set of requirements - one for DC and one for WAN/IXP that would be IMO fine. Many thx, R. --0000000000004afcd405be36403f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=C2=A0
The position I have been taking is figu= ring out what is required for BGP
auto-configuration.=C2=A0 Data center is the specific scenario we are solvi= ng for
right now.=C2=A0 The working group may take on non-data center cases as fut= ure
work.=C2=A0 The analysis discussion is being used to refine what state is required for each of the scenarios.

And I t= hink this is where the confusion is coming from.=C2=A0

=
The document is about DC but it includes lots of additional baggage wh= ich in view of number=C2=A0of people is not required for the DC auto discov= ery.=C2=A0

I guess in the best intentions you adde= d all additional data there thinking ahead and planning to use the same mec= hanism for any BGP auto discovery scenario which was precisely agreed not t= o be a goal of this document to start with.=C2=A0

= So my little suggestion is to scope this to DC. If we end up with two diffe= rent set of requirements=C2=A0- one for DC and one for WAN/IXP that would b= e IMO fine.=C2=A0

Many thx,
R.=C2=A0
--0000000000004afcd405be36403f--