Subject: [Dcrouting] A comment on draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-spf

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:27:06 +0000

Hi co-authors of the BGP-SPF draft,

I wonder whether it's worthwhile to consider the coexistence of the traditional BGP-DV protocol and the BGP-SPF protocol on a given node. If so, it seems that we need to maintain separate routing table instances for those two protocols while distinguishing received packets which are corresponding to different routing table instances, e.g., assign a dedicated label for the BGP-SPF routing table instance so as to map received MPLS packets with that label to the corresponding BGP-SPF routing table instance while using policies to map received packets to different routing table instances at the ingress of the BGP-SPF domain), just as what has been done for the performance-based BGP mechanism (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-01).

Best regards,
Xiaohu

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:20:21 -0500

On December 22, 2017 at 3:27:24 AM, Xuxiaohu ([email-masked]) wrote:

Xiaohu:

Hi!

I wonder whether it's worthwhile to consider the coexistence of the
traditional BGP-DV protocol and the BGP-SPF protocol on a given node. If
so...

Yes, I think so.

That (coexistence with/separation from traditional BGP) is one of the
pieces that I expect to see in a forthcoming proposed charter for lsvr —
please subscribe to that list (cc’d here) and contribute your comments and
ideas there. :-)

Thanks!!

Alvaro.