Hi John, I think I am getting to what you are saying ... or maybe not.
If I am reading it correctly you say that running BGP over TLS or DTLS is not standardized hence we should be very careful in putting this in the new documents. Would you be of a different opinion if authors say instead that the intention is to run BGP over TCP over TLS or DTLS ? If so for clarity I would think this could be a helpful editorial change. If however you are saying that when defining a new transport be it some form of tunnel (EVPN, SR, MPLS over IP, MPLS over MPLS etc ...) we need to recycle all protocols which run over TCP or UDP to sort of bless them for running on such new transport then I think this is not achievable in our short life time. Best, R. On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 9:30 PM John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2024, at 2:48 PM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > > > I have been using BGP over TCP over TLS and BGP over TCP over DTLS for > years testing Sproute's SDWAN solution. Works perfectly fine. In fact it > performs much better then BGP over TCP over IPSec. > > Cool. There are a great many things in the world that work and are nice > but haven’t been standardized. We tend to avoid basing standards on them. > Sometimes we do say “oh hey I’d like to base a standard on foo” and so we > make an RFC for foo so that we have something to cite. But AFAICT that is > not currently the case with the present example. > > —John
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
