Subject: [RRG] IDR, ist-RiNG, new BGP features: VPN, multicast etc.?

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:03:01 +1000

Hi Dino,

In "Re: [RRG] Routers in DFZ" You wrote:

>> None of this should be construed as an opinion that BGP can't be
>> improved or that it will scale infinitely.  But "BGP will stop working
>> ... can't converge" is overly pessimistic.
> 
> But don't you think we should stop putting more features into BGP like
> VPN stuff and multicast routing? That would be taking us faster in the
> pessimistic direction.

Looking at the IDR list I see a lively discussion about
draft-marques-idr-flow-spec-04 which I haven't read, but which
involves some new functions for BGP routers, new flows information
in BGP messages etc.  "... a second application to traffic filtering
in the context of a BGP/MPLS VPN service."  There is disagreement
about whether this should be worked on in the IDR WG or not.

Is it this or some other proposal which involves multicast?  You
mention multicast in the LISP I-D but I do not understand that section.

I think there is some kind of disconnect here.  On one hand, some
folks are going to great lengths to devise a new tunneling system -
LISP, eFIT-APT or Ivip so far - because we believe that the BGP
system can't cope with the growth in multihoming end-user networks,
even with the likely moderate stability improvements which are are
being contemplated at present.

On the other hand, quite a few of the IDR people who really know BGP
inside out (I don't, maybe you do) seem keen to add new layers of
control plane (and FIB / data plane?) functionality.

Yet the whole purpose of these bold LISP, eFIT-APT, Ivip etc.
proposals - which would involve drastic and troublesome additions to
the Internet architecture - is to reduce the load on the routing
system's control plane, with the side benefit of limiting the number
of prefixes each router's FIB has to handle.

Some of the people on the IDR list who seem to support the
additional complexity of draft-marques-idr-flow-spec are not active
on the RAM or RRG list regarding ROAP.

I get a "ships passing each other in the night, unseen" feeling here.

I get the same feeling about http://www.ist-ring.org . This is a
European taxpayer funded research project dedicated to solving
routing problems regarding multihoming, but also mobility and QoS.
Yet I can find no mention of this in the RAM or RRG list.

  - Robin

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg