Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-12

Dear Authors

I read the document and was wondering why this draft is informational and
not standards track as this draft introduces a crucial feature of PIC edge
 “pre programmed backup paths” and PIC core new H-FIB versus default
flattened FIB, where core link failure does not require updating BGP FIB
next hops making it prefix independent and only requiring updating of BGP
recursive IGP FIB next hop for core link failure convergence onto alternate
paths.

This draft provides significant advantages for cases where BGP RIB had
backup paths that by default are not advertised and with the “advertise
best-external knob” and BGP “add paths” MP Reach capability PE-RR and VPN
PIC case where RD auto is set so all paths advertises to RR are unique by
RD and reflected so the SAFI 128 backup paths can be pre programmed.

This PIC core and edge feature as is implemented by almost every vendor as
of the last 10+ years and is used by almost every operator around the
world, I see we are now circling back to make standard which happens in
cases where it takes time for vendor  implementation and operator use cases
before WGLC.   This seems to be one of those cases.

As the PIC feature is a new critical feature,  it is critical that this
feature is made standards track for vendor interoperability.  BGP PIC core
and edge are I believe locally significant features their maybe some
components that require interoperability it is still important to be made
standards track.

I do see that Cisco has 2 IPRs field so based on that I do feel this
 definitely should be standards track.

Date
ID
Statement
2020-11-19 4490 Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4490/>
(Updates ID#: 4488)
2020-11-16 4488 Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4488/>

Tot

I will provide a detailed review of the draft.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 12:38 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I've read the document and believe it is ready for publication. Several
> notes after the reading:
>
>    - authors might consider changing references to list IETF documents
>    rather than enumerating them in the list of references. For example, use
>    [RFC5036] instead of [4].
>    - Because the ability to realize the described technique depends on
>    using the specific HW, I think that should be reflected in the Abstract.
>    Perhaps following the very last sentence:
>
> It is noteworthy to mention that the benefits of BGP-PIC are
> hinged on the existence of more than one path whether as ECMP or
> primary-backup.
>
>
>    - And because, as I understand, the document describes a
>    particular implementation, an Experimental track might be used rather than
>    the Informational.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 8:26 PM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear RTGWG,
>>
>> The authors have requested  WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic.
>>
>> There was consensus that document is ready for the last call, the authors
>> have addressed all the comments received, IPR statements have been
>> submitted.
>> Please indicate support or no-support by December 28, 2020.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jeff and Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtgwg mailing list
>> rtgwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
-- 

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

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

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