Hi Susan, I strongly support the adoption of the BGP-CAR proposal.
I agree with the many arguments brought forward by Robert R. on this thread along with the network operators' views expressed by Luay J. here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PKkqHGQYlrU2or3Af3ABbODq24I/ and by Daniel B. here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2tFGYFXsNtpPKSQdr8CCYFbt0tU/ . Also, aligning a BGP-based color-aware transport solution to BGP-LU seems an obvious choice (this is BGP-CAR). On the flip-side, bringing VPN awareness to each transport 'hop' can quickly become quite cumbersome (this is BGP-CT). <personal comment> I strongly believe the IETF should standardize on modern, scalable, and forward-looking solutions rather than stitched-together proposals that may be (granted) easy to demonstrate in a POC but are likely leading to operational complexity in highly scaled production networks. </> 1. Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical? IS> Yes, I agree with this assessment. However (see my comments above) 2. If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts? IS> We should pursue a single draft, BGP-CAR. ---------- On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:35 AM Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > BESS: > > > > Today we started the WG adoption call for the > > the CAR/CT drafts. This adoption call has > > the following two parts: > > > > Part-1: Questions on technology direction > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/ > > > > Part-2: Adoption of the drafts > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/ > > > > The IDR Chairs need to hear from IDR and BESS WG members > > (operators, implementers, academics and architects). > > Please help us by sharing your thoughts on the technology direction > > and the adoption. > > > > The BESS WG has a long history of working > > with VPN so we?d like to hear their view on this technology direction > > as well as the adoption of these drafts. We?ll be querying the BESS > chairs for > > their view of consensus on this adoption call so you can also talk to > them > > about this draft. > > > > Cheers, Sue Hares > > (IDR co-chair and shepherd for this adoption call) > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/attachments/20220718/64505c1e/attachment.htm> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 13:49:59 +0000 From: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: Santosh P K <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [bess] Adoption call for CAR/CT drafts (7/6 to 7/20/2022) - Please help us Message-ID: <byapr08mb487286172d16ab009c0140e1b3...@byapr08mb4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com<mailto:byapr08mb487286172d16ab009c0140e1b3...@byapr08mb4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Santosh: Thank you for being a BESS members who responded on this call. Would you kindly respond on the IDR list on the mail threads below so that others could see your comments? Due to the amount of contention on this topic, I need to ask people to respond directly to the IDR mail threads. Would it be helpful to you and other BESS WG members, if I posted my weekly summaries of the discussion to the list? Thank you, Sue From: Santosh P K <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:27 AM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [bess] Adoption call for CAR/CT drafts (7/6 to 7/20/2022) - Please help us Hello Susan, I have read the drafts and I support BGP-CT. Both the approaches are functionally identical, but I think BGP-CT is easier to understand, implement, troubleshoot and has a lesser learning External ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]>>) Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tLzkyMGRkYWYzYTk3ZWY1YzgwZjc0ZGU5Y2U3ZWQ5Y2Y0LzE2NTgxNTA4NjEuMDc=#key=b3c9a806bdd215df09bffba631784bcd> FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq> GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky> Hello Susan, I have read the drafts and I support BGP-CT. Both the approaches are functionally identical, but I think BGP-CT is easier to understand, implement, troubleshoot and has a lesser learning curve. Thanks Santosh P K On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:35 AM Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: BESS: Today we started the WG adoption call for the the CAR/CT drafts. This adoption call has the following two parts: Part-1: Questions on technology direction https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=mailarchive.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjsGKwjAURX-lZD3kJdo2jSsFkRlmp-D-kbw0wbaRJFOYEf9ds5rt4dzDfbCfNLFdw3wp97wDmDFMmIwPK_FAxfGYRqgA5jxCsAlOPn6L9jNffnU5qxCv6nAU17X_Si2wj4bdam6h8h5K0Q29lhvIHhPl_WL_PDdxBr0R1qLbolbkOjMIp1pL2pAiq41rQfbdIDsx9JILVatUqxmXErPnd5wmHLGUsB_r4dqskq3SP3m-AAo3RbU.MEUCICB-zjHRArB6XWthUMmkgDWwUkWk9_6SMT8eaOKrk5baAiEAnooEFSOW4-WtWfszVB7O9MNSW4HWTf9u1V8pboaMDVM<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/%3chttps:/shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=mailarchive.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjsGKwjAURX-lZD3kJdo2jSsFkRlmp-D-kbw0wbaRJFOYEf9ds5rt4dzDfbCfNLFdw3wp97wDmDFMmIwPK_FAxfGYRqgA5jxCsAlOPn6L9jNffnU5qxCv6nAU17X_Si2wj4bdam6h8h5K0Q29lhvIHhPl_WL_PDdxBr0R1qLbolbkOjMIp1pL2pAiq41rQfbdIDsx9JILVatUqxmXErPnd5wmHLGUsB_r4dqskq3SP3m-AAo3RbU.MEUCICB-zjHRArB6XWthUMmkgDWwUkWk9_6SMT8eaOKrk5baAiEAnooEFSOW4-WtWfszVB7O9MNSW4HWTf9u1V8pboaMDVM>> Part-2: Adoption of the drafts https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=mailarchive.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjstKQzEURX-lZCw5SdvcJB21tFNFsIJ0Ise8ae6DJCpW_HfNyOli7cX-Ju8lk92KxNaWugMYMWUsJqYPR5Nrns4lQAcw1gDJFjg8vh7z2yUs15fh-PAlz3hJz-rp_iQ-gdytyLXnJtf-hpwJNWi-hhqxuLqf7C1SM4-g18xa9BvU0nlhFPNya502Tjqrjd8CH4TigqmBUyZ71fVqxanNNdIFc8aAraV96Id7s0u2S__k5xdNWkYi.MEQCIBm289KUTQxGLvhLq2C1c53DJ1U2uRfxCYfAHVmp2bgTAiBXQyWbxu6XbmH9YTS9zXMIAmSQEYIoQU2d-jEoKdzp9g<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/%3chttps:/shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=mailarchive.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjstKQzEURX-lZCw5SdvcJB21tFNFsIJ0Ise8ae6DJCpW_HfNyOli7cX-Ju8lk92KxNaWugMYMWUsJqYPR5Nrns4lQAcw1gDJFjg8vh7z2yUs15fh-PAlz3hJz-rp_iQ-gdytyLXnJtf-hpwJNWi-hhqxuLqf7C1SM4-g18xa9BvU0nlhFPNya502Tjqrjd8CH4TigqmBUyZ71fVqxanNNdIFc8aAraV96Id7s0u2S__k5xdNWkYi.MEQCIBm289KUTQxGLvhLq2C1c53DJ1U2uRfxCYfAHVmp2bgTAiBXQyWbxu6XbmH9YTS9zXMIAmSQEYIoQU2d-jEoKdzp9g>> The IDR Chairs need to hear from IDR and BESS WG members (operators, implementers, academics and architects). Please help us by sharing your thoughts on the technology direction and the adoption. The BESS WG has a long history of working with VPN so we?d like to hear their view on this technology direction as well as the adoption of these drafts. We?ll be querying the BESS chairs for their view of consensus on this adoption call so you can also talk to them about this draft. Cheers, Sue Hares Ianik Semco .:|:.:|:. Cisco Systems | Product Manager, MIG [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
