Subject: Re: [Idr] FYI: Last Call: 'A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)' to Draft Standard

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 20:29:34 +0300 (EEST)

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
> One simply cannot put all the bits of information required to make bgp
> "useful" in the base specification and still have a readable document.

This is an operationally critical piece.  Moreover, I think all the
implementations out there (that I'm aware of -- I've probably missed
some!) already support this behaviour (whether it's default or not is
another question), which again is a thing worth considering here.
 
> moreever the iteraction procedures that you seem to want to document
> are not something the wg has achieved consensus on. there are still
> different opinions on this topic and different deployed
> behaviours. Thus including this topic in the base protocol spec seems
> to me to be contrary to the original goals of revising the
> specification.

Would this call for achieving that consensus, if it does not exist?
 
> I would also like to point out that several outher people have
> expressed the opinion that this topic should be left out of the base
> spec. In fact i would claim that there is consensus on that ammong the
> wg.

It seems to me that only you have stated opinions against that.  Vijay 
Gill appeared to support my proposal (in more general terms), and 
Gargi Nalawade didn't say much one way or the other, but volunteered 
for proposing the text on the "new wording".

Unless I'm missing someone's mails, I don't see think your statement
is accurate.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 20:29:34 +0300 (EEST)

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 13:58:08 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Pekka Savola 
> Unless I'm missing someone's mails, I don't see think your statement

BGP/IGP interaction does not belong in the base BGP specification.
We've had consensus on that for many years and when it came up again
during this iteration within the WG it seemed to me we still had
consensus on that.

Curtis

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 13:58:08 -0400

Curtis

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 21:29:49 +0300 (EEST)

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
[...]
> during this iteration within the WG it seemed to me we still had

Note that I'm not calling for BGP/IGP interactions as described e.g., 
in RFC1745.  That seems to mostly describe how to redistribute the 
information between different protocols.

However, I'm interested in ensuring that BGP remains usable in the
operations.  As it is, the current "active route condition" fails when
you want to advertise the loopbacks and point-to-point (also) in BGP,
not just the IGP.  That's a major scenario which has to be addressed,
IMHO.

(And this has been already been addressed in all the implementations
I've used, so this is really not just theory -- it's implemented and
out there.)

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:46:21 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Pekka Savola 
> I've used, so this is really not just theory -- it's implemented and

You should look in the work group mailing list archives.  This too was
discussed at great length and quite recently and we acheived consensus
that it was a topic for a separate internet-draft.  No one volunteered
to write that separate draft (so far) but that does not affect the BGP
spec.

Curtis

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 21:29:49 +0300 (EEST)

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:46:21 -0400

Curtis