[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ms-ospf
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-bgp-only-fabric
From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant () cisco ! com>
Date: 2019-03-11 10:11:47
Message-ID: SN6PR11MB28455D5C90231EA6DC2D9239C1480 () SN6PR11MB2845 ! namprd11 ! prod ! outlook ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (text/plain)]
Hi Robert,
Please check inline below.
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Sent: 10 March 2019 21:40
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-bgp-only-fabric
Hi Ketan,
I have read your proposal of defining topology flooding in BGP with interest.
It seems like a pretty brilliant twist to take pieces defined in other documents with \
their original intention for sending IGP information (LSDB or TED) over BGP extension \
and now use all of those without IGP at all :). [KT] RFC7752 did always have "direct" \
and "static" protocols – so it was not just IGPs. We extended to include BGP \
protocol for describing Peering topology for the EPE use-case with \
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe
But I have just one question here perhaps to the WG or ADs.
Almost all normative references used in this draft clearly state that they were \
defined for carrying information present in ISIS & OSPF protocols as rather a \
courtesy of transporting them over TCP with BGP envelope between network and \
controller.
Can we now just "reuse" verbatim all of those defined codepoints as well as redefine \
use of BGP-LS SAFI as a new link state p2p network topology transport just like that \
? [KT] The BGP-LS SAFI is still used to report link-state information. This draft \
describes how it can be done even when no IGP is running and we are instead running \
BGP protocol (in RFC7938 hop-by-hop routing design). Each router here is setting up a \
BGP-LS session with a controller or a centralized BGP speaker to report the router's \
own node properties, links, prefixes, etc. The objective is build a link-state \
topology at the controller for specific use-cases like topology discovering and TE \
with SR as described in Sec 6 of the draft.
At min I would like to see some analysis included in this draft of running native \
link state protocol possibly with dynamic flooding optimization vs running BGP as the \
only routing protocol with using BGP as topology discovery transport before we \
proceed further on this document. [KT] I am not sure I see the contrast here. \
Personally, I support the dynamic flooding optimization work in LSR. There are \
already DC networks deployed with RFC7938 design. All this draft is introducing is \
topology discovery and other use-cases in the latter.
Thanks,
Ketan
Kind regards,
Robert.
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" \
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" \
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" \
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" \
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-IN" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hi \
Robert,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p \
class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Please check inline \
below.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p \
class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Robert \
Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> 10 March 2019 21:40<br>
<b>To:</b> Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-bgp-only-fabric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Ketan,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have read your proposal of defining topology flooding in BGP \
with interest. <o:p></o:p></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems like a pretty brilliant twist to take pieces defined in \
other documents with their original intention for sending IGP information (LSDB or \
TED) over BGP extension and now use all of those without IGP at all \
:). <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>[KT] RFC7752 did always have \
"direct" and "static" protocols – so it was not just IGPs. We extended to include \
BGP protocol for describing Peering topology for the EPE use-case with \
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe</i></b><o:p></o:p></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">But I have just one question here perhaps to the WG or \
ADs. <o:p></o:p></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Almost all normative references used in this draft clearly state \
that they were defined for carrying information present in ISIS & OSPF protocols \
as rather a courtesy of transporting them over TCP with BGP envelope between network \
and controller. <o:p></o:p></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can we now just "reuse" verbatim all of those defined \
codepoints as well as redefine use of BGP-LS SAFI as a new link state p2p network \
topology transport just like that ? <o:p></o:p></p> <p \
class="MsoNormal"><b><i>[KT] The BGP-LS SAFI is still used to report link-state \
information. This draft describes how it can be done even when no IGP is running and \
we are instead running BGP protocol (in RFC7938 hop-by-hop routing design). Each \
router here is setting up a BGP-LS session with a controller or a centralized BGP \
speaker to report the router's own node properties, links, prefixes, etc. The \
objective is build a link-state topology at the controller for specific use-cases \
like topology discovering and TE with SR as described in Sec 6 of the \
draft.</i></b><o:p></o:p></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">At min I would like to see some analysis included in this draft \
of running native link state protocol possibly with dynamic flooding optimization vs \
running BGP as the only routing protocol with using BGP as topology discovery \
transport before we proceed further on this document. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>[KT] I am not sure I see the contrast here. Personally, I \
support the dynamic flooding optimization work in LSR. There are already DC networks \
deployed with RFC7938 design. All this draft is introducing is topology discovery and \
other use-cases in the latter.<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><o:p> </o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Ketan</i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Robert.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
--===============0558243718541759417==--
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic