# IDR meeting at IETF 111 ## Session 1: Tuesday, 16:00-18:00 (UTC -7), July 27, 2021 ### 0. Agenda bashing and Chairs' Slides (10 mins) IDR will adopt draft-ietf-bgp-autoconf-considerations-01.txt IDR will welcome bgp autoconf protocol proposals. Interims on 8/23 (new drafts), 9/13 (flowspec-v2), 9/21 (TBD), and 10/11 (TBD). Potential topics: Auto-configuration protocols, and error handling for embedded NLRIs, and proposed topics. ### 1. BGP YANG model [Mahesh Jethanandani] (5 mins) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model/ Major issues to be discussed today: extended communities and large communities. Jeff Haas: Explained the issues about large community , the extended communities and YANG typedef in detail. Jeff Haas: Please take a look at the open issues tracked at: https://github.com/mjethanandani/ietf-bgp-yang/issues. The target is to get most of the work done by next IETF. ### 2. BGP Color-Aware Routing (CAR) [Dhananjaya Rao] (10 mins) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car/ There is ongoing effort to merge the two problem statement drafts. Srihari Sangli: It says you can advertise different labels for different encapsulations, are they still separate NLRI? As the labels in NLRI are non-key? Dhananjaya: Confirm that labels are non-key. Srihari: Raised the question about key/non-key on mail list. How will the NLRI grow with the key and non-key? For new attributes whether put it the NLRI or in the attribute would be a question. Dhananjaya: THe non-key in NLRI is for per-route specific information rather than generic attribute. Aijun Wang: What is the advantage to define new NLRI? It can be done with the existing color ext-community. Dhananjaya: Did not get the question fully, the color ext-comm is used to indicate the request for an intent. Can take to the list. Kaliraj (from chat): Is CAR a service-layer family or a transport-layer family? Ketan (from chat): they are two different SAFIs - one for transport other for service, Plz check sec 8 of the v02 for the VPN CAR. ### 3. BGP Classful Transport (BGP CT) [Kaliraj Vairavakkalai] (10 mins) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/ Linda Dunbar: Is the color consistent across all the nodes？Is this similar to Flex-Algo? Kaliraj: Flex-Algo is one approach for intra-domain. BGP-CT is for inter-domain. The color is usually consistent in one domain, but may not be consistent when cross domains. Border nodes can rewrite the route target. Linda: Can Flex-Algo be used inter-domain? Kaliraj: Even if it is the case, it can coexist with BGP-CT. Swadesh Agrawal: About local convergence. You need to do import at ABR. When advertising to the upstream, the same local label will be carried in different CT routes. THis seems like a hack. Kaliraj: The routes are collected into transport RIB. One reason is for service mapping to tunnels of a certain kind. There is no such thing in BGP CAR. Swadesh: BGP CAR can also provide the resolution based on the same color. What is the advantange of 2 different routes with different RDs but the same local label？ Kaliraj: The prefix allocation is on the scope of prefix:transport class. There is nothing that stops you from announcing two routes with the same label. The advantage is to tell the upstream ABR different nexthops. Swadesh: This can have some problem. Jeff: No time for further discussion. This is a interesting point. Please post this to the mailing list for further discussion. Haibo Wang: VPN routes use next-hop and color to match the transport tunnels. The key in BGP CT route (RD, prefix) does not match with the key used for VPN route resolution. Kaliraj: Didn't get the question. The service route asks for a tunnel resoluation of a color, the tunnel can be either intra-domain flex-algo or RSVP, or inter-domain BGP-CT. If there is no tunnel with the color, it will use best effort. Haibo: It would good to have further discussion of this on the list. ### 4. BGP MPLS-namespaces: Improve Scaling and Convergence in Seamless-MPLS networks [Kaliraj Vairavakkalai] (10 mins) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/ Swadesh: How many routes will be seen by the PE if the domain has 100 PEs and 1000 vrfs? Kaliraj: ... (some of response begun here)... Jeff: Suggest to take the discussion to the list. ### 5. Generic Metric for the AIGP attribute [Reshma Das] (10 mins) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp/ Swadesh: The metric type is decided by the original domain？I am not sure what benefit you are gaining over the IGP domain. Reshma: If you are low cost in one route in one domain, and delay in the metric in another domain. Shraddha: Can carry different metric types in different routes. Only metric of the same type can be accumulated. Swadesh: Is the metric type used to represent the intent? Try to understand the advantage. Shraddha/Reshma: We should discuss this on the list. ### 6. BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT [Giuseppe Fioccola] (10 mins) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit/ No questions on the meeting. ### 7. Advertising p2mp policies in BGP [Hooman Bidgoli] (10 mins) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy/ Gyan Mishra: Huaimo: We don't have BGP sessions to P nodes. P2MP SR Policy needs to send instructions to P nodes. Hooman: Does not require BGP sessions for each node, can use P2P Policy between nodes. If need replication segment Hop by Hop, will need BGP session to each node. Gyan: Is SRv6 and inter-domain covered? Hooman: It is covered in the drafts. Gyan: There is a mechanism in PCE WG. How does this interact with this mechanism? Hooman: The PCE mechanisms are a second mechanisms. Jeff: The draft also presented in BESS, the content will be developed in IDR. ### 8. BGP-LS with Multi-topology for SR based VTN [Cong Li] (10 mins) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xie-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt/ Ketan (from chat): this is an informational document with really no signaling or protocol extensions for BGP-LS. Do we need such a draft? Note that consumers and use-cases for use of BGP-LS is outside the scope of BGP-LS. Best case, considering adding necessary text to the corresponding LSR draft ... which is also informational. Jie (from chat): Yes this is an informational document. Comparing to the LSR draft, it also covers the distribution of inter domain topology and TE attributes for a VTN. Les Ginsberg (from chat): @Jie +1 to what Ketan has said. The draft simply describes what is discussed in other drafts - I see no need for it. Time would be better spent in making sure all the drafts referenced in draft-xie-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt are themselves complete.09:00:43 Jie Dong (from chat)： @Les we had similar discussion about the LSR draft, the consensus was it is useful to document the usage of MT for VTNs. ### 9. Deterministic Route Redistribution into BGP [Enke Chen] (10 mins) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-bgp-redist/ Note: Enke requested WG Adoption after -03.txt is posted. John Scudder (from chat）: I'm pretty sure this is a rerun (with different details) of a presentation Rich Woundy gave around IETF-30 or so, plus or minus. Same problem (ish). Same solution (ish). It even was implemented in early GateD, but poorly documented and nobody understood it. Maybe we can make the fix stick this time.08:50:43 ### 10. Update and Discussion on RD-ORF Solutions [Gyan Mishra/Aijun Wang] (10 mins) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-idr-rd-orf/ https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-idr-vpn-routes-control-analysis/ No comments or questions on the meeting. ### 11. (If time allows) Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 MPLS using 4PE [Gyan Mishra] (5 mins) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mishra-v4-islands-v6-mpls-4PE/ No time to present. [5 minutes for switching]