Hi Ketan, I have read your proposal of defining topology flooding in BGP with interest.
It seems like a pretty brilliant twist to take pieces defined in other documents with their original intention for sending IGP information (LSDB or TED) over BGP extension and now use all of those without IGP at all :). But I have just one question here perhaps to the WG or ADs. Almost all normative references used in this draft clearly state that they were defined for carrying information present in ISIS & OSPF protocols as rather a courtesy of transporting them over TCP with BGP envelope between network and controller. Can we now just "reuse" verbatim all of those defined codepoints as well as redefine use of BGP-LS SAFI as a new link state p2p network topology transport just like that ? At min I would like to see some analysis included in this draft of running native link state protocol possibly with dynamic flooding optimization vs running BGP as the only routing protocol with using BGP as topology discovery transport before we proceed further on this document. Kind regards, Robert.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
