Use of BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers
draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-11

[Ballot comment]

I would have liked to know a bit more about how these schemes
behave if some of the servers or say a ToR device in the DC are
considered as attackers e.g. having been compromised, but you
only mention attacks from outside the DC. I assume the answer is
to not accept servers as BGP speakers, but I'm not sure how you
do that reliably. And I also don't know whether or not ToR
devices are successfully attacked often.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-10.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com, akatlas@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of BGP for routing in large-scale data centers) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
(rtgwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Use of BGP for routing in large-scale data centers'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Some network operators build and operate data centers that support
  over one hundred thousand servers.  In this document, such data
  centers are referred to as "large-scale" to differentiate them from
  smaller infrastructures.  Environments of this scale have a unique
  set of network requirements with an emphasis on operational
  simplicity and network stability.  This document summarizes
  operational experience in designing and operating large-scale data
  centers using BGP as the only routing protocol.  The intent is to
  report on a proven and stable routing design that could be leveraged
  by others in the industry.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  The Intended Status is 'Informational'. 
  The type of RFC is properly indicated in the title page header.
  This document summarizes operational experience in designing and operating large-scale data centers using BGP as the only routing protocol.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document summarizes operational experience in designing and operating large-scale data
  centers using BGP as the only routing protocol.  The intent is to report on a proven and stable routing design that could be leveraged
  by others in the industry. The design presented in this document is based on operational experience with data centers built to support
  large-scale distributed software infrastructure.

Working Group Summary

  This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG, very good feedback had been provided by SP and vendor community.
  The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG.
  All comments have been addressed.  The draft is ready for publication.

Document Quality

  There are existing implementations and multiple vendors have shown significant interest in the topic. 

Personnel

  Jeff Tantsura is the Document Shepherd.
  Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd.
  All comments have been addressed.  The draft is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  N/A

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  N/A

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes.  Every author has confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  Yes.  The authors have been asked (and they answered) on the WG
  list about IPR at every step of the process.  There haven't been
  any concerns raised on the list.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG,
  As mentioned above, significant discussion (including several vendors and operators)
  has taken place on the list.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  The state of other documents remains unchanged.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  This draft has no action for IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  N/A