Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 33)
Type Early Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2024-03-06
Requested 2023-12-19
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Kaliraj Vairavakkalai , Natrajan Venkataraman
I-D last updated 2024-03-13
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -18 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff)
Secdir Early review of -18 by Magnus Nyström (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -19 by Bo Wu (diff)
Secdir Early review of -19 by Magnus Nyström (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -27 by Olivier Bonaventure (diff)
Secdir Early review of -30 by Magnus Nyström (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Mohamed Boucadair (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -12 by Bo Wu (diff)
RTG-DIR - Jon Hardwick is working on the review, but this request is to revise the date for completion. 
If Jon could review this draft by 1/5/2023, it would be helpful. 

OPS-DIR - Bo Wu did the review in July.  It would be helpful for him to review the latest version (-18) or later.  Or you can obtain another person, 

SEC-DIR - Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels.  In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities about the network. 

TSV-DIR - Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels.  Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text.
Assignment Reviewer Olivier Bonaventure
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 27 (document currently at 33)
Result On the Right Track
Completed 2024-03-13
I reviewed this document for tsvart with a focus on issues related to the
transport area. The document defines BGP extensions to enable service providers
to deploy inter domain services based on different types of tunnels with MPLS
used as an example. The objective of the document is to provide different types
of services using these tunnels.

From the viewpoint of the transport area, there are two important points that
need to be discussed when considering such tunnels: - MTU problems if the
tunnel configurations differ - DSCP issues if DSPC is used to provide non-best
effort services

These two issues are not discussed in the document. This could be a design
choice, but then I would suggest to explicitly document it. For the MTU
problem, it could be useful to mention that operators should coordinate the MTU
of the tunnels used to prevent PATHMTU discovery problems that could appear in

For the DSCP issue, it is unclear from the document whether DSCP will be used.
The document specifies that different operators could use different BGP
codepoints and that these codepoints could be mapped from one operator to
another, but there is not discussion about the same problem for DSCP in the
data plane. RFC5462 defines E-LSPs and L-LSPs, but it is unclear from the draft
whether any of these types of LSPs are used. This should be discussed in the
paper as this will have an impact for some deployments.