Re: [Idr] Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14/2022 to 7/27/2022) - Operational Differences

["Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Shunwan,,

Thank you for your question.

The BGP-CAR draft has an example for this scenario. Could you please take a look ?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05#appendix-A.4

Regards,
-Dhananjaya

From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan=[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 9:29 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14/2022 to 7/27/2022) - Operational Differences


Hi WG,

Both drafts introduce new BGP address families.
Should we consider the compatibility and incremental deployment for the new BGP address family extensions in multi-domain networks?
For example, the new address family is only supported in the first and the third domain, while the transit domain does not support it.

If yes, can the authors please describe how to do it?

Thanks,
Shunwan


From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:17 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Idr] Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14/2022 to 7/27/2022) - Operational Differences

The IDR Adoption call for CAR and CT technologies is extended for an extra week
(7/14/2022 to 7/27/2022).

The IDR adoption call on Q2 has brought many discussions on pro/cons of the CAR
and CT BGP technologies:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/

Since the IDR chairs agree with the summary of Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair) posted 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/

This forum (Part 3) is place to discuss operational differences between the CAR and CT drafts.

These procedures for this mail thread are:

A.     On original discussion on point in a draft
1.       Text in either the CAR or CT draft that is applicable to the operational difference.
2.       Provide a sample topology.
3.       Discuss the pros/cons clearly stating whether your post is a: pro, con, or clarifying question.
Try to split clarifying question posts away from pro/con posts. Remember, you can post to this forum several times.
In your technical discussion, define your terms and avoid value judgement.


B.      On a discussion based on message in Q2 or Q1 mail list:
1.       Quote and link to Q1 or Q2 forum’s message.
2.       Text in either the CAR or CT draft that is applicable to the problem
      (Either provide the text or give specific reference (section, paragraph, and line(s)).

3.       Provide a sample topology.
4.       Summarize your viewpoint as: correction, clarifying question, pro, or con.
5.       Discuss the pro/con or text giving technical discussion.
In your technical discussion avoid define terms, give specific
examples in terms of draft text, sample topology, and facts.
If you state an opinion, back it up with technical facts.

If you are making a correction, assume the other person either misunderstood
or has a difference of opinion.  Respect each other as each IDR member is
entitled to their opinion. As a group we are working toward excellent BGP
in deployed technology.

In your delightful passion on these two technology additions to BGP (CAR and CT), please adhere to these rules.

Thank you, Susan Hares