Tony – Probably too many emails in one day on this – but did want to respond to a few points. Inline.
From: Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 5:35 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE Les, I could be more specific regarding my opinion about various alternatives that have been mentioned (BFD, OAM, BGP, pub-sub) – but it doesn’t make sense to me to comment on proposals which have not actually been defined. The proposals have been put forth in adequate detail for a preliminary discussion. They appear to be tractable and implementable and thus seem like feasible alternatives. [LES:] I believe some of the alternate proposals are tractable – which is not to say that I prefer them. But I don’t want to ask questions like “How do you do this…?” in the absence of a writeup. I am assuming that if we had a writeup the authors would have done their best to define a complete solution and then we could meaningfully review and comment. But without a writeup it is hard for me to say – “Oh yes – this is much better. Let’s abandon the IGP approach and go this way.” In the meantime, we started with the IGPs because: a)IGPs have the raw reachability info – they don’t have to get it from some other entity b)IGPs have the reliable flooding mechanism Given that we want to address a real deployment issue in a timely manner, we want to move forward. You want to move forward. Not the rest of us. We – meaning the WG/IETF – are tasked with defining practical solutions to real problems. No. Our job is standardizing solutions. We are not tasked with defining them. Proof: you can unilaterally go off and define, implement, and deploy whatever solution you like today. We cannot stop you. In fact, it’s none of our business. However, when it comes to standardizing it, that’s when we (the IETF WG) get involved. At that point, the bar is somewhat raised. That’s when you have to convince the rest of us that you have a good solution to the problem. [LES:] Agreed – and that is what we are trying to do. We are in no rush to move forward with a bad solution. Especially at scale. :-) It’s fine to object to a proposal – but that doesn’t get us to a solution. I am not saying that you specifically are responsible for defining an alternate solution – but if “we” are to progress then we either need to accept an IGP solution or define an alternative. Now, if you are saying the problem doesn’t need to be solved – then we just disagree. The problem needs to be solved. No question. It doesn’t need to be solved with a rush to a bad solution. Architecturally, putting liveness reporting into the IGP is just a bad idea, for all of the reasons that we’ve already articulated, repeatedly. Our arguments have met with stubborn and somewhat disrespectful rejection without clear rationale about why our arguments are incorrect. This does not build consensus. [LES:] We have responded positively to comments about our solution – particularly in the area of scale. (Next version of pulse draft will be out soon – we preferred to enjoy the holidays. 😊) And I apologize if anything I said was seen as disrespectful. I have tried very hard to confine my responses to technical issues. We do disagree on some things – but I don’t see that as disrespect. Les Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
