Re: [Idr] IDR WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server (2/2/2015 - 2/16/2015)

["Neil J. McRae" <[e-mail]>]

> the other decade, i spent some time and energy trying to get peers at an
> exchange i helped build to do bgp autoconfig from shared data.  it was
> too complex for the smaller ones.  i have been the poster child for irr
> based configs for over 20 years.  it has not gone well.

unfortunately.

> 
> route servers with front ends such as ixp-mangler seem to have enough
> web gooey that folk can use them.  the problem is that non-congruence of
> the data and control planes has consequences which have repeatedly
> bitten us, from datakit, atm, ...  so i have ranted aginst them for some
> time.  arnold asked what might make me able less uncomfortable with
> them.  draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00.txt attempts to answer that.
> 
> but this is probably the wrong venue for an ops discussion.  this is
> where we see how many bgp tricks we can add to a simple idea to make it
> comfortably complex and fill out the contributors' list.
> 
> so again, i think draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server is good to go,
> unless the authors have the guts to cut 2.3.2.2, Advertising Multiple
> Paths.  and i think draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00.txt might even make it
> palatable to me.
> 

I agree.  I think it's good to go also and bfd makes a lot of sense as a solution given its already there. 

I note now though my concerns on implementation of section 2; it's the necessary evil recurrence loop - it feels like a huge effort for limited return, but as a solution for those practising the route server necessary evil - it's acceptable and Nick is right in that we in ops live this life now.
I can't help feeling with more and more depth and diversity in exchange of traffic we will be back to redo this in the future.