Subject: RE: RP overloading: Next Steps

From: "Hamid Ould-Brahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:40:59 -0400

Alex,

[clipped]...
> 
>     What I think we should do is form a design team that would group
>     people who believe that we DO need an alternative to MP-BGP for
>     non-routing info distribution and know what functions it should
>     perform. This team would then be asked to come up with these two
>     documents, that would be discussed on this list and in Minneapolis
>     (we would either bring it to the open RTG area meeting, or have a
>     BOF for this topic explicitly.)
> 

Two comments on that:

- If I take the example of former ppvpn wg, there was in fact a design
  team created specifically for the discovery mechanism or to be
  more precise, a design team that explores requirements and
  alternatives to non MP-BGP provider-based VPN discovery for
  those who didn't like BGP option for one reason or another. 
  After much debate, the outcome of that design
  team was inconclusive and produced only a requirement document
  on that topic. 

  My question is how the above proposal is any different from
  what has already been done in former ppvpn wg?

- It looks to me even if some people believe we DO need alternative
  to MP-BGP for non routing info distribution, this in my opinion
  should be part of the discussions going on in each specific
  application (similarly to what has been done in ppvpn).
 
  I do not expect *routing-area* discussions/work to produce
  a protocol that is mainly intended for non routing related 
  application being pursued in other working groups.

Hamid.

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:58:26 -0400

Hamid,

>   what has already been done in former ppvpn wg?

I don't think it differs at all.  BGP *can* be used for it and
is being used successfully.  The problem with doing something
that you think can break is the people who expect the problems
can only look on and either be disappointed that their fears were
unjustified if things don't break or look on with horror as they break.

>   application being pursued in other working groups.

This is the wonderful demi-mess that got us the layer2.5 work in
the first place - neither one spot nor another. :-)

IMO, the changes can be done in a fairly simple set of changes to
BGP that will make all parties happy.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:58:26 -0400

Hamid,

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:12:18 -0700

Hamid,

>   what has already been done in former ppvpn wg?

The two are very different. The scope of the discussion of the DT in
PPVPN was to look at the specific problem of VPN discovery and
possible solutions for it. This one would look at an alternative to
MP-BGP for data distribution among routers in general. Fundamental
assumptions are also different. In the PPVPN case people with
different basic opinions (using MP-BGP is ok vs not ok) were in the
same group, which made consensus building hard, if at all possible. In
this case, the DT would start off from the statement "OK, if we wanted
an alternative to MP-BGP for data distribution among routers, what
would it look like?"

>   application being pursued in other working groups.

Well, as we can see, apparently routing area did produce a protocol
that is being used for non-routing related application. Given that the
alternative may inherit a lot from the work that was done here on
flooding and policy-based routing info distribution, I believe RTG
area would be the right place. Consideration of the
application-specific transport requirements should be part of the
discussion, of course.

Alex

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:12:18 -0700

Hamid,

Alex