On Nov 22, 2019, at 5:07 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Dave, I’ve been quoted in the past that BGP, used as a transport, is “TCP with beard.” It would have been trivial to split out the minimal semantics the actual BGP protocol brought to the table. BGP just because "it is there already" now transports link state database and one SAFI of it is being called a link state protocol. Just because it is there regardless of its p2mp nature is also being used for p2p configuration push including ACLs. It seems that BFD is heading the same way - again on the very same basis - "it is there" - so let's use it. Sigh. Protocol malpractice, IMHO. I guess other people aren’t embarrassed as easily as I. Part of the issue is that the IETF hasn’t bothered to put together a set of generic transports to build things like this on top of. Spot on ! Except IETF does not ship router's code :). Vendors do. And till we see a generic transport perhaps ZeroMQ message bus like OpenR uses being shipped across at least few vendors existing protocols will get abused more and more … Chickens and eggs. Perhaps some like-minded vendor folk would like to do something about it… —Dave Best, R.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
