Subject: Re: [GROW] Proposed updates to GROW charter

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 17:06:23 +0000

Dear all,

Below is a third revision of the charter proposal, we attempted to
incorporate all the feedback received so far, specifically Alvaro's.

Please let us know your feedback!

Kind regards,

Job & Chris

------------------------------------------------------

Charter for Working Group
==========================

The purpose of GROW is to consider the operational problems associated
with the Internet Protocol (IP) global routing systems, including but
not limited to default-free zone routing table growth, effects of the
interactions between interior and exterior routing protocols, the effect
of address allocation policies, or practices on the global routing
system. Where appropriate, GROW documents the operational aspects of
measurement, monitoring, policy, routing system security, VPN
infrastructures, or safe default behavior of IP routing protocol
implementations and deployments.

GROW will also advise various working groups, specifically IDR and
SIDROPS, with respect to whether it is addressing the relevant
operational and routing security requirements of Internet networks,
and where appropriate, suggest course corrections. Finally, operational
requirements developed in GROW can also be used by any working group
chartered with standardizing a next generation inter-domain routing
protocol.
 
GOALS
-----

* Provide stewardship and maintenance for the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
* Provide stewardship and maintenance for the Multi-Threaded Routing
  Toolkit (MRT) Routing Information Export Format
* Document Best Current Practises for operations of the Internet global
  routing system.
* Analyze aspects for supporting new applications, including extending
  existing routing protocols or creating new ones. This includes risk,
  interference, and application fit.
* Document the operational aspects of securing the Internet routing
  system, and provide recommendations to other WGs.
* Provide documentation to assist in preventing malpractice in the
  global routing system.

Milestones
----------

2020 - "Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)" to IESG
2020 - "BMP Peer Up Message Namespace" to IESG
2020 - "Revision to Registration Procedures for Multiple BMP Registries" to IESG.
2021 - "Document negative consequences of de-aggregating received routes for traffic engineering purposes" - to IESG
2021 - "TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages" to IESG.
2021 - "A BCP on using IRR and RPKI data to improve filtering of BGP peering sessions" to IESG or via "Evolving Documents"

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:54:15 -0700

Job:

Hi!

Thanks for addressing my comments!

I have just a couple more things:

- The use of "Internet networks" doesn't sound right...perhaps "Internet-
  connected networks"?   Looking at the rest of the charter, I assume that,
  for example, the operations of BGP in a non-Internet-connected network (a
  data center, for example) is not within the scope of grow.  Is that the
  intent, or am I reading too much into it?

- [nit] The last goal talks about "preventing malpractice in the global
  routing system".  I'm not sure documentation can stop someone from doing
  the wrong thing -- especially if they want to.  Maybe this goal can be
  worded positively: Document best practices and recommendations to assist
  in the proper operation of the global routing system.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On July 29, 2020 at 1:07:06 PM, Job Snijders
([email-masked](mailto:[email-masked])) wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 21:16:53 +0000

>   connected networks"?   Looking at the rest of the charter, I assume that,

Job an I had a concern (I think we both shared this concern) about
limiting the problems/solutions/monitoring/etc to
'internet-connected'.
I think that 'bgp' (or external routing protocols) are used on both
'internet connected' and 'all the other' IP networks, right?
should the benefits GROW pushes for be limited to 'internet connected' ?

(I agree the current wording could use some help, how do we capture
the idea that any IP network that ends up using a bgp can benefit?)

>   intent, or am I reading too much into it?

i think we were hoping to cover  both, actually. our wording choice
wasn't great :)

>   in the proper operation of the global routing system.

sounds ok to me :)

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:42:17 -0700

On July 29, 2020 at 5:17:04 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 8:54 PM Alvaro Retana wrote:

Chris:

Hi!

...
> Job an I had a concern (I think we both shared this concern) about limiting
> the problems/solutions/monitoring/etc to 'internet-connected'.

Personally, I think that benefiting all networks would be better.

But then I think there's maybe some more words required to set the
right scope.  A couple of questions:

- Does grow want to focus on "global routing" (which seems to imply
Internet-connected) or on general routing operations?  Or maybe
operations of inter-domain routing protocols?

- So far the focus has been on exterior routing, so mainly interacting
with sidrops/idr makes sense.  The first paragraph talks about
"interactions between interior and exterior routing protocols"; should
the operation of the IGPs also be in scope?  All of them?

I think that we could debate this forever.  Assuming that the WG wants
to keep the current focus, a simple change might be:

OLD>
   GROW will also advise various working groups, specifically IDR and
   SIDROPS, with respect to whether it is addressing the relevant
   operational and routing security requirements of Internet networks,
   and where appropriate, suggest course corrections.

NEW>
   GROW will also advise various working groups, mainly IDR and
   SIDROPS, with respect to whether it is addressing the relevant
   operational and routing security requirements of networks using
   inter-domain routing protocols, and where appropriate, suggest
   course corrections.

At this point I'm just suggesting a color for the bike shed...

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:54:20 +0000

I understand that GROW is specific to Global Routing Operations at the current time. Is the intention of the new charter to address BGP as a protocol when explicitly dealing with routing state for standalone or inter-connected ... or is the scope expanded to include BGP as it is currently deployed to support non-routing and hybrid use cases?  

BGP is used for across multiple FOUs i.e Kompella, EVPN, FlowSpec, BGP-LS etc... Each of these present unique operational challenges. 

Will the charter address these and other FOUs BGP is used for?

Thanks,
	Jim Uttaro

-----Original Message-----
From: GROW <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 5:17 PM
To: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [GROW] Proposed updates to GROW charter

sounds ok to me :)

> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_grow&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=IojpM1TAAkTpS4ennajQ17-MgCMLHirQSt5AO_RHDJQ&s=elBh5rs6q5S7xQl2KMEIbFbYLdlPRgmKWPeej5I0pzo&e= 

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email-masked]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_grow&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=IojpM1TAAkTpS4ennajQ17-MgCMLHirQSt5AO_RHDJQ&s=elBh5rs6q5S7xQl2KMEIbFbYLdlPRgmKWPeej5I0pzo&e=