Subject: Re: Open Routing Area meeting in Vienna

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:13:30 -0700

Alex,

[clipped...]
 
> The point is that I agree that the MP-BGP framework is a good match
> for the required functionality, however the number of concerns we have
> heard suggest that it may not be THE right choice in the long run.

We also heard for quite some time that for the Internet inter-domain
routing BGP "may not be THE right choice in the long run". With
this in mind I would suggest for folks interested in "THE right
choice in the long run" to stop arguing against adding more stuff
to BGP, and instead join the folks working on "THE right choice in 
the long run" for the Internet inter-domain routing.

Yakov.

P.S. For those interested in the current status of the work on "THE
right choice in the long run" for the Internet inter-domain routing
I am happy to report that this work, aka as a LTSFGTC (Long Term
Solution For Generations To Come), is in progress and is expected
to be published in RFC100000.

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

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:13:30 -0700

Alex,

[clipped...]

Yakov.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:59:30 -0700

> the long run" for the Internet inter-domain routing.

Discussing whether adding "more stuff to BGP" (or any foo on protocol
X for that matter) is a good idea or not, and the long-term
implications of the tendency to use protocols in such manner is
certainly within the charter of the IETF, and protocol-specific WGs,
so I don't believe that asking people who disagree to bail out of this
discussion would be in the spirit of openness and fairness of the IETF
process.

> In a market-driven economy vendors usually pay attention to $$$, not
> to a person's bashing his/her head against the brick wall.

And here we will pay attention to all people who speak up and explain
their positions, regardless of how much $$$ they have, but rather
based on the technical substance of their arguments.

> To paraphrase, I don't think that the ratio of the operators present
> at the Open Routine Area meeting in Vienna (or for that matter the
> operators who express their opinion on this mailing list) to operators
> in the global marketplace are what they should be to produce a
> reasonable sample of the operators' perspective on the issue.

We are not in the business of producing "samples of the operators'
perspective" worldwide here. Let's leave this to the marketing
departments of our employers. We are here to reach consensus among the
people who care about the issue and participate in the IETF. If
someone believes that not enough SPs have spoken up in this
discussion--feel free to invite them to contribute.

> I don't think there is any disagreement on the need to provide
> isolation between services. It is just that some folks claim that
> (a) there is no way to provide such isolation within BGP, (despite
> the fact that there are products on the market that do provide such
> isolation with BGP), and that (b) the new protocol is going to
> provide such isolation (which at the present moment is nothing but
> an unsubstantiated claim).

I think it is not exactly that black-n-white. The way I read the
concerns people have about BGP overloading in particular is that folks
feel that the BGP-based approach introduces a higher risk of
interference with the routing functions than the non-BGP one.

Alex

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:59:30 -0700

Alex

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:59:39 -0700

Alex,

> interference with the routing functions than the non-BGP one.

"feel" is not exactly an engineering term... (IETF suppose
to work on engineering...)

With this in mind the folks who *feel* "that the BGP-based approach
introduces a higher risk of interference with the routing functions
than the non-BGP one", and would like the IETF to work on this need
to "convert" their feelings into a set of well-articulated *rationale*
arguments of *practical* (as opposed to theoretical) significance.

Yakov.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:59:39 -0700

Alex,

Yakov.

---

From: Mark Prior <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:56:11 +0930

> arguments of *practical* (as opposed to theoretical) significance.
That's all very well but how do you propose that they try to come up 
with a practical argument if they are arguing not to do something? Can 
you show them that the reverse is true?

Mark.

---

From: Mark Prior <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:56:11 +0930

Mark.