Re: [Idr] BGP-LS alternatives - problems and solutions

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

All,

I am very glad we are having this thread.


> There is also an experimental PCEP-LS: draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
>

IMO PCEP-LS is falling into the same trap as BGP-LS ended up being caught
with. It defines TLVs and sub-TLVs to encode information. That means that
any change or extension in the OSPF or ISIS would need to be reflected in
the PCEP-LS protocol extension. That does not scale.

While cherry picking some specific information may be useful it should be
backwards compatible - so I would expect any new protocol to reuse already
defined encoding for BGP-LS.

New proposal should also allow a mode of operation where any new protocol
extension is synchronized without any new IETF draft or RFC needed. As
example OSPF OOB LSDB sync spec meets this criteria well:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4811

I will try to document my proposal and share with the team in the coming
weeks.

Best,
Robert


Just do routing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Deficit/Benefit:
>>
>> 1. New protocol must be deployed along with
>>
>> ISIS, OSPF and BGP.
>>
>> 2. Interactions between BGP-LS
>>
>>
>>
>> Open issues:  What are potential error conditions for
>>
>> Protocol interactions (ISIS/OSPF to DROID)?
>>
>>