Re: [Idr] Transport Instance BGP

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Fri, 31 July 2020 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1103A07BE for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Llpn_Icj4sEA for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92c.google.com (mail-ua1-x92c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D0D53A07BD for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92c.google.com with SMTP id n2so2756354uan.2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=67GBcVyesAu/7a8/n3KtPijTOUhEaXPAACyvXZhJ91A=; b=SmVk15CNkG2TRoRfl6r1a8it021HZf4x8fhy3wzAK9wxW8Rlgpx0hrMLVp1EWSi6Pf Ro8FGRaUEBSXqsPvg1RmfQsR1a52CIYNqKyFlQroPtvv1NwXnQ5Yuk+FwAr4xdYvvyEv 5f7wABiN5oMSvIQIldO60izdIShlaBo9cmi3jx2INxHkjpEq3R6+ENX6wxfzbTESON3w 7mG5ZVvb4l6ki7n8UyffIikqFCVjJ1VaD9vmsxQ8UI/o/MahxbGE1+s+wnKADV6VJZ2R Bfz05kWRQriUjvH43MnoAOLlV+x8U+wYi/EDKN8kImaE96/ScyB5RaJjV/UW/TEvMU0Q zDEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=67GBcVyesAu/7a8/n3KtPijTOUhEaXPAACyvXZhJ91A=; b=FDuDkPpMfU5X04MOWRG7Xivdpchr9mNLNp1znowRuuhxTX+yWtzpnOP7T9EfODjXFA e4nM2S51C50lic51/iwJkG58+E1Y3cVfkI9fv12Z+a+qCzjaHHWKnNnz6nxDRSzQLkU7 Ps38AbRaO6AQ0aQctextNP08bGAwtqN8iPBPKOi2Jm/7cgwvFMUGYA5FyH0VaZwJbbu/ fczeCqNd1kbQxMYQo09r6Gfrb+yD/og+xL0s0QeS+PquUrKdagHrT5Zo8+vY1hr5/mHH +C0A/Q7V2Rq98HA+UK0igcflIwaSn1imnaHqWjOhIYAmoURN2xyxCVDLe8kfqvIgAEdx 4K8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531MkYj3xQOSJDSLaMxiohi7ZOGYff7EfNHwhKfATrxWzTEAb37r WC6suPa+En2EWvAKArGdNZKHl0dItGrljSFHBRA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyQ5pL6JW98qzNe7E+aYl2F6cJS/lSJuTmGryr0sGSCAuZqo5RV9ywoZXmmq7SNH17edgqtwIh8SImI9r9HBJw=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:1469:: with SMTP id c38mr4150033uae.141.1596236059497; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SN6PR13MB23347FC0BC5212B52E62591385750@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMFqFaQ3e6voR-4LyZaAwY2VVX12h_z8tTtJMV+y9KJjyw@mail.gmail.com> <SN6PR13MB2334CCDC36A49DC07F05946485720@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHOt+7-suB9Y3cRbC0osM5i+-ueNaGUjfVO3iShUF276Q@mail.gmail.com> <214FC810-D50E-4F48-96AB-0DAB894FBB8A@icloud.com> <CAOj+MMF+61OiddMSp_y2Cq+Fb-YVh4R=7azTRiTnfz3tXazfaQ@mail.gmail.com> <a411014fb097445a8445d5b1b4953de1@huawei.com> <CAOj+MMGqe6694O1yTOPKTyxFBTj208S8-C4ywm=W-vjmfjASPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3LPDLsK2-+eW=vFQOes4bXah-yWjVah5jLSWB+0wR+xg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHCwDT7q_5FSZeJPENpNwdzZ1xMU6Mr5GUOqMiLuEreag@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2soMenXnxEtKif17ePBhq244VTXqvv1R5ddMpfFFsdSQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2o8nwgvy2.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAOj+MMEySNspsm+1vcHdwDHd3qeSzgj=Da2YgrkMR55b2zYHug@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV0ae3+tdfXvjjRpUGLamK+Lxwms6YpKKpnMmA3PKj-8mQ@mail.gmail.com> <952c3e07-4666-41fc-8377-f26265d95d5a@Spark> <CAOj+MMG9rZjtsQV1dpC6K3mCfhorXPAG_tUe6=1ba0BF0Pt7vg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMG9rZjtsQV1dpC6K3mCfhorXPAG_tUe6=1ba0BF0Pt7vg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:54:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV0fT8DJmcLV-H-f4mJnSbfw4DhQ9UM9Ymc-7kKn5D8uDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Greg Skinner <gregskinner0@icloud.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004dd77805abc4abe5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ybSwHLV7YfVyZj1R09gJSCkZPN8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Transport Instance BGP
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 22:54:23 -0000

Please count me all in as well on the rejuvenation effort!!

Kind Regards

Gyan



On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:06 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
>
> Can you provide any references to other proposals aiming at this space
> within BGP ?
>
> Thank you,
> R.
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:03 AM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There had been a variety of proposals (to my memory) to decouple
>> BGP(kitchen sink) from BGP(reachability).
>> I’d be all in to rejuvenate this effort, and use Robert’ document as the
>> starting point.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jeff
>> On Jul 31, 2020, 2:26 PM -0700, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>om>,
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sounds like plan.
>>
>> I like the win-win for BGP.👍
>>
>> Those two camps Service Provider and  Enterprise are closely aligning and
>> converging as a major the variable is size, and if the private closed
>> domain is a worldwide massive network, they are very close to being
>> completely aligned as is the case with Verizon and maybe other Tier 1 and
>> Tier 2 providers.  Of course the closed domain bar can swing from tiny to
>> massive which is your point. Agreed.
>>
>> I agree on the former however the IETF has individual representation from
>> all camps thus the world we live in and cannot satisfy everyone but the bar
>> can swing from small to large.  Finding the happy medium is a challenge but
>> that is part of our job in achieving WG consensus and IETF adoption on any
>> protocol specification.
>>
>> That being said from an IETF and protocol development perspective you
>> have to think of the trickle down of the protocol specifications as it
>> applies to all vendors and all routers switches appliances you name it that
>> runs any protocol or specification developed - ospf Isis BGP MPLS SR etc.
>>
>> Since that protocol specification developed by the IETF can sit on a tiny
>> CPE box running BGP MPLS SR or even BIER or commodify incumbent hardware
>> vendor Service Provider massive OTN box with high 400G density, or NFV
>> server - router VNFs, or 1RU pizza box white box running disaggregated
>> software from incumbent commodity vendor, the IETF standard is a standard
>> for all implementation of the protocol specification independent of
>> hardware mode or brand big or small it applies to every vendor development
>> and implementing software.
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:48 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Very true ... we could always rename it to "Internet routing related"
>>>
>>> In fact this should be win-win for both ... more stable Internet on one
>>> hand and lower bar for new twicks and mangling with BESS like or NETCONF
>>> like insertions to essentially a p2mp path vector protocol.
>>>
>>> In fact we see it more and more these days (example SRv6-NP long
>>> discussions) where Internet engineering and stability and close domain
>>> network design and engineering do not align. They are very different and
>>> trying to either stretch one or trim the other what we see in number of
>>> IETF WGs is just not the right thing to do.
>>>
>>> One would think that IETF as the name says is about the former ... but
>>> if we see RFCs and drafts maybe just a small percentage of them indicates
>>> so.  Almost like the "I" there stands for IP and not Internet ....
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:17 AM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Please review this draft and let Robert and myself know if its
>>>> something
>>>> > worth reviving.
>>>> >
>>>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-ti-bgp-01
>>>>
>>>> imiho, there are a lot of things currently called "routing related" i
>>>> would throw on the other side of that wall.
>>>>
>>>> randy
>>>>
>>> --
>>
>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike%C2%A0+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>*Silver
>> Spring, MD
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike%C2%A0+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
>> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD