Re: [Idr] Questions over draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic-01

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 05:01:12PM -0700, Yingzhen Qu wrote:
> As Alvaro mentioned, we're still at the very early stage of this project,
> and there is still a lot of work to be done. One of the key areas we're
> focusing on is exploring the benefits and challenges of using BGP over QUIC.
> 
> There are several advantages of using QUIC for BGP, including its ability
> to support multiple streams over a single connection. This allows one
> stream to be reset without impacting other streams. Additionally, the
> stream prioritization feature of QUIC can help us manage traffic more
> effectively, ensuring that high-priority BGP traffic is given the resources
> it needs to be transmitted quickly and reliably.

So your reason for QUIC is multi session support but that is not a problem
of the transport layer (TCP vs QUIC) but is a problem of BGP RFC4271 OPEN
handling and would require an extension like draft-ietf-idr-bgp-multisession.

Also I doubt that stream priorization is able to improve priorization of
individual BGP messages. It is anyway mostly a non issue since most BGP
sessions run on short-fat pipes so there is little queuing required.

> However, there are also some challenges to consider when using BGP over
> QUIC. For example, since TLS 1.3 is integrated into QUIC, this improves
> security and also makes it more difficult for network administrators to
> monitor and troubleshoot network traffic. Additionally, the complex nature
> of the protocol could require more resources to maintain and debug.

QUIC makes it impossible to cold start a network. Depending on TLS 1.3
requires a working clock, DNS and global network to work properly.
Also admins need to keep all their certificates valid. Looking at RPKI and
the state of RRDP servers it is obvious that many admins are unable to
ensure this.

> Despite these challenges, we believe that the benefits of using BGP over
> QUIC are significant enough. While we acknowledge that there is still a lot
> of work to be done, we'd like the community to be aware of this work and
> get interested, and send questions and comments.

I really see no need for BGP over QUIC. It does not offer any benefits
over TCP since all the features are ready availabe in TCP. The problem is
the BGP protocol on top of those transports.

I see a lot of challenges and very minimal benefit for the cost required
to implement QUIC as transport solution.

-- 
:wq Claudio

> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 3:19 PM Alvaro Retana <alvaro.retana@futurewei.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On March 13, 2023 at 12:56:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> >
> > ...
> > > I have my own concerns about the lack of stability within QUIC standards
> > here
> > > as well. We often see TCP sessions up for several years carrying BGP
> > data,
> > > and most of the QUIC stuff is extremely short lived, while a 7 year+ TCP
> > > (BGP) session isn’t as unusual as one might think.
> >
> > Yes, this is definitely new territory!
> >
> > The QUIC experts tell us they don't see an obvious red flag, but we do
> > need to keep in mind that the initial QUIC use case is HTTP/3 -- as you
> > mention.  There are some features, like 0-RTT data exchange, that may not
> > be applicable to a long-lived session like BGP.
> >
> > Any potential transition will not be overnight. ;-)
> >
> >
> > Alvaro.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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