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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:52 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> *From: *Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 7:44 PM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=[e-mail]>,
> IDR List <[e-mail]>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call
> (6/6 to 6/20)
>
>
>
> Hi Acee,
>
>
>
> I am afraid the OSPF transport instance draft you quote serves a
> completely different purpose.
>
>
>
> I believe your perspective is limited by the solution you have in mind.
> This would work perfectly for LSDB dissemination (note that there is a
> precedent here). It could also be extended to IS-IS LSPs (with a little
> invention).
>
>
>
> IMP (IGP Monitoring Protocol) I suggested would be an analogy to BMP (BGP
> Monitoring Protocol) unicasting either received flooded LSPs or LSAs or
> content of LSDB over TCP or QUIC to some central oracle.
>
>
>
> I am not aware such a proposal was ever discussed in LSR WG or its
> predecessors WGs.
>
>
>
> I feel this protocol would be better discussed in the RTG WG.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> Many thx,
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> PS. And there were and are many real world use cases for such. Till now
> folks who needed to listen to link state flooding were always asked to set
> up a passive session. But we do see this is not flexible enough. A p2p
> protocol is needed. BGP-LS is a living proof of it. In fact IMP could
> leverage the exact same encoding as currently sent over BGP-LS SAFI.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:35 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 7:23 PM
> *To: *"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *IDR List <[e-mail]>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call
> (6/6 to 6/20)
>
>
>
> Dear Les,
>
>
>
> I have two final questions on this:
>
>
>
> on such a mundane topic.
>
>
>
> Would IDR keeping their WG policy in place and mandating two interoperable
> implementations and decent industry support make this topic a little bit
> less *mundane* ?
>
>
>
> If someone actually has an alternative proposal with some detail – that
> would be interesting.
>
>
>
> This proposal to send LSDB across N nodes should come from and within LSR
> WG as we are talking about LSR protocols. Why IDR is even cc-ed and LSR WG
> is not beats me.
>
>
>
> Why can't LSR WG not come with IMP - IGP Monitoring Protocol ?
>
>
>
> We already have the capability in OSPF – See section 3.3 of
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt
>  We just need more support…
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
> PS. Actually the way I read Jeff's note was very positive and extended
> help to LSR WG to make the process seamless. But it seems some folks
> apparently think this is all done - do not waste our time - You IDR-ers
> take what we produce in ISIS and OSPF to BGP forever. That's pretty cool
> indeed :)  And another LSR WG member and ex-chair says if you do not take
> it we will squat codepoints and do it anyway ... so you have no choice.
> Bravo !
>
>
>
>