Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01

Dear Les,

You are bringing up a very valid observation which I highlighted in my rant
on BGP-LS a few days ago.

According to your belief, whatever LSR WG approves automatically must be
incorporated into BGP namly BGP-LS and all BGP speakers now must be able to
understand it and parse. With that I assume even the requirement of two
independent implementations for *ANY* BGP extension should be relaxed too.

Is that the new IDR norm ?

Do we no longer care if this is even useful for Interdomain Routing in
any form or shape ?

What worries me that even single vendor LSR approved proposals with no
implementation at all (or maybe single implementation in some beta stage)
will be producing load on BGP development and testing process. Where will
this end ?

IMHO BGP-LS should actually stop accepting new load. Those willing to send
it from areas to controller should seek a new transport.

And why only ISIS or OSPF should be privileged to put staff into BGP ? Why
not define new SAFI to take RIFT data and put it also in BGP. Or BABEL ? Or
BIER ? All of those could benefit to transport data from network to
controllers.

Kind regards,
Robert

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:57 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Sue –
>
>
>
> Color me confused.
>
>
>
> We have here a protocol extension to IS-IS that the LSR WG has approved
> (passed last call). Which there was sufficient belief in the WG that this
> protocol extension was useful for it to be approved.
>
> But you claim there is some secondary process, managed by the IDR chairs
> (or perhaps IDR and LSR chairs?), that determines whether the BGP-LS
> extensions in support of the approved IGP extensions will be allowed?
>
> This is completely new to me – please explain how that process works.
>
>
>
> NOTE: I am not debating Aijun’s remark as to the “enthusiasm” showed in
> the LSR WG for the draft – nor was I a vocal supporter of the LSR draft in
> question.
>
> But, if LSR WG approval is not sufficient to justify the corresponding
> BGP-LS support, please explain what is the defined process and where it is
> documented and describe how it has been used in the past.
>
>
>
> Thanx.
>
>
>
>     Les
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Susan Hares
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 7, 2022 1:54 PM
> *To:* Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
> *Cc:* idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call
> (6/6 to 6/20)
>
>
>
> Aijun:
>
>
>
> Thank you for your feedback on deployment issues.   It is important to
> know if an operator feels this option will not be deployed.
>
>
>
> I  will contact other operators to ask them to comment on this adoption
> call.
>
>
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 7, 2022 10:51 AM
> *To:* Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
> *Cc:* idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call
> (6/6 to 6/20)
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, all:
>
>
>
> I don’t support its adoption.
>
> The corresponding IS-IS document past just the LSR WG unconvincingly and I
> cannot foresee which operator will deploy the flood reflection mechanism in
> IS-IS deployment.
>
> Then it is doubtful also the corresponding BGP-LS extension.
>
> There is no any description for the necessary in the document.
>
>
>
> If the authors insist to do so, I recommend to incorporate the trivia
> contents into the corresponding IS-IS document.
>
>
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> China Telecom
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2022, at 05:28, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
> draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01.txt
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr/
>
>
>
>   This document defines one new BGP-LS (BGP Link-State) TLV for
>
>    Flood Reflection to match the ISIS TLV for flood reduction.
>
>
>
>    The draft is short (5 total pages).
>
>
>
> Since this BGP-LS feature has been adopted by IS-IS,
>
> Please consider
>
>
>
>    1. Is there any technical difficulty with adding this to the BGP-LS
>    code points?
>
> 2.   Is this draft ready for publication?
>
> 3.   Does this addition help operational networks.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue Hares
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)