Subject: RE: Who speaks for whom [was: Re: Open Routing Area meeting in Vienna]

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:17:06 -0700

Jeff,

That's an excellent point and perhaps the question that should have
been asked instead.  The entire issue was initiated improperly by
assuming the answer.  We still don't know what problem we're trying
to solve.

The problem *I'm* interested in solving is how do we keep the control
plane stable.  Just shifting the work to another protocol does NOTHING
for that.

Tony

|    -----Original Message-----
|    From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|    Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:05 AM
|    To: Yakov Rekhter
|    Cc: Danny McPherson; [email-masked]
|    Subject: Re: Who speaks for whom [was: Re: Open Routing 
|    Area meeting in Vienna]
|    
|    
|    On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:00:40AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
|    > With this in mind I'd like to hear from the folks who 
|    argue against
|    > adding more stuff in BGP whether they also object against adding
|    > more stuff into ISIS.
|    
|    As I think I've mentioned before, I think we each have reactions
|    much like the DNS folk who continually find stuff being shoved
|    into their working infrastructure.  
|    
|    (not specifically to Yakov)
|    Is there any way we can just frame this conversation as "how do we
|    keep from breaking things when we're working on extended them"?
|    
|    
|    -- 
|    Jeff Haas 
|    NextHop Technologies
|    
|    _______________________________________________
|    routing-discussion mailing list
|    [email-masked]
|    https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
|    

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

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:20:32 -0700

|    BGP (yes, you knew this was coming) has a state machine that once
|    something enters the HOSED stated (which should probably 
|    be in the FSM :-)
|    that it tears down the peering session, no matter what caused it.
|    
|    There may be other "solutions", but first we need to agree 
|    that it's
|    a problem.  I think it might be.

Jeff,

If this is the problem that we're trying to solve, can I then request
that we take it back to the IDR mailing list?

I was under the impression that some people think that there's a
different problem that needs solving.

Tony

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:41:59 +0100

No problems with enhancing ISIS or OSPF or ....

BGP though is unique, it is the only thing we have to glue The
Internet together and so we should be wary of jeopardising it which
adding ever more function to it is apt to do.  Enhance BGP if so doing
give us a better Internet - more stable, faster convergence, better
router selection; otherwise don't.

I see OSPF (more familiar to me that ISIS) being used ever more widely
by people whose grasp of it is not so great and in so doing, the ideas
of it get diluted or distorted.  For example, OSPF defines router id
as a 32-bit number, not an IP address (RFC2328 Page 47); at least two
working groups produced IDs in 2002 stating that router id was an IP
address and could be used as such.  (Well, let them try that in
IPv6:-)

The more we load onto BGP, the more people work on it, the more
deviation we will have, the more risk to The Internet.

Tom Petch

-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
To: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: 06 August 2003 15:02
Subject: Re: Who speaks for whom [was: Re: Open Routing Area meeting
in Vienna]

>Danny,
>
>[clipped...]
>
>> On the topic of RP overloading...
>>
>> There are [some] very real problems folks are attempting to address
and
>> given MP-BGP & BGP-CAP, BGP has been the easy answer.  Heck, with
IGP
>> Capabilities being defined we'll be able to do more things even
faster
>> (although I'm kidding, be wary :-)
>
>The discussion should certainly include extensions to ISIS, like
>carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 unicast routing, IPv4 unicast routes
>used by IPv4 multicast, IPv6 unicast routes used by IPv6 multicast,
>using  ISIS Extensions for BGP Peer Discovery, using ISIS flooding
>procedures to carry TE information.
>
>With this in mind I'd like to hear from the folks who argue against
>adding more stuff in BGP whether they also object against adding
>more stuff into ISIS.
>
>Yakov.
>
>

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:41:59 +0100

Tom Petch

-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
To: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: 06 August 2003 15:02
Subject: Re: Who speaks for whom [was: Re: Open Routing Area meeting
in Vienna]

and
IGP
faster

---

From: "George Sheng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 05:27:52 +0000

>For example, IGP adjacency state changes trigger new BGP
>updates per IGP-derived MED values, subsequently triggering
>new paths selected by adjacent routing domains, and so forth,
>resulting in convergence issues and a domino effect for
>downstream ASes.

Let's also not forget to consider not "overloading" a local IP interface 
with
unnecessary features. If an Interface bounces, it will cause IGP adjacency
bounce/unstable, which in turn will cause BGP unstable. We at least need
to have some guidelines on what features should or should not be added
onto the IP intefaces.

- George

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail