From dmm at sprint.net  Wed Jan 29 19:51:06 2003
From: dmm at sprint.net (David Meyer)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:51:06 -0800
Subject: Update on GROW BOF
Message-ID: <200301291951.h0TJp6kv015809@sith.maoz.com>



	Folks,

	The agenda/description of the GROW BOF posted to
	IETF-Announce had some naming skew. I've cleand that up
	in the below. Also, there is a mailing list that we can
	use for this on grow at lists.uoregon.edu (thanks Lucy).

	Dave

----
 	Global Routing Operations Working Group BOF (grow)
 	
 	Tuesday, March 18 at 1700-1800
 	==============================
 	
 	CHAIRS:		David Meyer <dmm at maoz.com>
			Vijay Gill <vijay at umbc.edu>
 	
	Mailing List:	grow at lists.uoregon.edu
 	
 	AGENDA:         Agenda Bashing                   5 minutes
 	                Review GROW Mission Statement    5 minutes
 	                PTOMAINE Update/Review          10 minutes
 	                GROW Scope Discussion           15 minutes
 	                Candidate Charter               15 minutes
 	                Next Steps                      10 minutes
 	       
 	Full Description:
 	
 	The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is fundamental to the
 	operation of the Internet. In recent years, the occurrence
 	of BGP related operational issues has increased, and
 	while overall understanding of the default-free routing
 	system has improved, there is still a long and growing
 	list of concerns. Among these are routing table growth rates,
 	dynamic properties of the routing system, and the effects
 	of routing policy on both the size and dynamic nature of
 	the routing table. In addition, new and innovative uses of
 	BGP, such as the use of BGP as a signaling protocol for
 	applications such as VPN, have created new and unexpected
 	operational issues.
 	
 	The purpose of the Global Routing Operations WG (GROW) is
	continue and expand on the original charter of the
	PTOMAINE WG. In particular, the purpose of GROW is to
	consider and measure the problem of routing table growth,
	and where appropriate, to document the operational
	aspects of measurement, policy, security, and VPN
	infrastructures. 
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 



From pekkas at netcore.fi  Wed Jan 29 21:20:55 2003
From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:20:55 +0200 (EET)
Subject: Update on GROW BOF
In-Reply-To: <200301291951.h0TJp6kv015809@sith.maoz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301292314200.10646-100000@netcore.fi>

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Meyer wrote:
>  	The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is fundamental to the
>  	operation of the Internet. In recent years, the occurrence
>  	of BGP related operational issues has increased, and
>  	while overall understanding of the default-free routing
>  	system has improved, there is still a long and growing
>  	list of concerns. Among these are routing table growth rates,
>  	dynamic properties of the routing system, and the effects
>  	of routing policy on both the size and dynamic nature of
>  	the routing table. In addition, new and innovative uses of
>  	BGP, such as the use of BGP as a signaling protocol for
>  	applications such as VPN, have created new and unexpected
>  	operational issues.
>  	
>  	The purpose of the Global Routing Operations WG (GROW) is
> 	continue and expand on the original charter of the
> 	PTOMAINE WG. In particular, the purpose of GROW is to
> 	consider and measure the problem of routing table growth,
> 	and where appropriate, to document the operational
> 	aspects of measurement, policy, security, and VPN
> 	infrastructures. 

Two specific comments and a generic one.

1) I'm having hard time grasping BGP VPN's as part of "Global Routing 
Operations".

2) It is not entirely clear to me, based on the wording of the first
sentence of the second paragraph, whether ptomaine is being shut down --
as otherwise the apparent overlap seems a bit confusing.

And, at least the tentative description seems still rather vague and
open-ended.  At least for the charter, a more specific goals would be
preferable so everything related to operational aspects of BGP would not
be on the table.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings







From dmm at maoz.com  Thu Jan 30 06:27:00 2003
From: dmm at maoz.com (David Meyer)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:27:00 -0800
Subject: Update on GROW BOF
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301292314200.10646-100000@netcore.fi>; from pekkas@netcore.fi on Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:20:55PM +0200
References: <200301291951.h0TJp6kv015809@sith.maoz.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301292314200.10646-100000@netcore.fi>
Message-ID: <20030129222700.A18013@sprint.net>

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:20:55PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Meyer wrote:
>> >  	The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is fundamental to the
>> >  	operation of the Internet. In recent years, the occurrence
>> >  	of BGP related operational issues has increased, and
>> >  	while overall understanding of the default-free routing
>> >  	system has improved, there is still a long and growing
>> >  	list of concerns. Among these are routing table growth rates,
>> >  	dynamic properties of the routing system, and the effects
>> >  	of routing policy on both the size and dynamic nature of
>> >  	the routing table. In addition, new and innovative uses of
>> >  	BGP, such as the use of BGP as a signaling protocol for
>> >  	applications such as VPN, have created new and unexpected
>> >  	operational issues.
>> >  	
>> >  	The purpose of the Global Routing Operations WG (GROW) is
>> > 	continue and expand on the original charter of the
>> > 	PTOMAINE WG. In particular, the purpose of GROW is to
>> > 	consider and measure the problem of routing table growth,
>> > 	and where appropriate, to document the operational
>> > 	aspects of measurement, policy, security, and VPN
>> > 	infrastructures. 
>> 
>> Two specific comments and a generic one.
>> 
>> 1) I'm having hard time grasping BGP VPN's as part of "Global Routing 
>> Operations".
>>
>> 2) It is not entirely clear to me, based on the wording of the first
>> sentence of the second paragraph, whether ptomaine is being shut down --
>> as otherwise the apparent overlap seems a bit confusing.

It kinda died. GROW replaces/carries on for PTOMAINE.

>> And, at least the tentative description seems still rather vague and
>> open-ended.  At least for the charter, a more specific goals would be
>> preferable so everything related to operational aspects of BGP would not
>> be on the table.

The BOF was originally entitled BGP OPS (BOPS), but was expanded
(by IESG and other request) to include other aspects of the
global routing system (including the interaction with various VPN
technologies, e.g. 2547). That being the case, I would say that
the operational aspects of BGP are on the table for this one.

All of that being said, one of the purposes of the BOF is to
refine the BOF description into a workable charter.

Dave



From dmm at sprint.net  Thu Jan 30 18:42:26 2003
From: dmm at sprint.net (David Meyer)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:42:26 -0800
Subject: Additional GROW BOF information...
Message-ID: <200301301842.h0UIgQIB020772@sith.maoz.com>


	Folks,

	I don't know if the message below from Sean made either
	the grow or ptomaine mailing lists (he sent me a strange
	bounce, and I didn't see it on the ptomaine
	archive). 

	In addition, I wasn't very precise about how to subscribe
	to the mailing list (lots of people have asked how), so
	here's that information:

	Mailing List:	grow at lists.uoregon.edu

			To subscribe, send mail to
			majordomo at lists.uoregon.edu with the line
			"subscribe grow" in the body (no quotes).
 	
			The Mhonarc archive can be found at:

			http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
			  username: grow
			  password: light



	Finally, as Sean mentions below, this (grow at lists.uoregon.edu) is 
	the venue for discussing charter. I am interested in what
	people think would be useful charter components/milestones/etc. 

	Thanks,


	Dave

> From: Sean Doran <smd at ab.use.net>
> Date: tor jan 30, 2003  16:34:59 Europe/London
> To: Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>
> Cc: Sean Doran <smd at ab.use.net>, David Meyer <dmm at sprint.net>, 
> ptomaine at shrubbery.net, <grow at lists.uoregon.edu>
> Subject: Re: Update on GROW BOF
>
>
> In reverse order:
>
>> 2) It is not entirely clear to me, based on the wording of the first
>> sentence of the second paragraph, whether ptomaine is being shut down 
>> --
>> as otherwise the apparent overlap seems a bit confusing.
>
> PTOMAINE has drifted from its original charter almost since
> its inception.  Certainly Abha's death completely derailed the
> charter milestones, and while PTOMAINE was a timeslot
> in which to present some truly interesting things, it wasn't
> obviously going to be a standards publication venue.
>
> One of the post-Abha cochairs has gone from being in retirement
> to being incredibly busy just as the other has gone from being 
> incredibly
> busy to going into retirement.
>
> A change to the charter and milestones, managing the publication
> of the existing in-progress documentation, and dealing with a change
> in co-chairs, apart from relying too much upon me working on these,
> is about the same as spinning up a whole new WG from scratch and
> figuring out what to do with the work remaining in PTOMAINE.
>
> Although this is not a formal statement -- which we owe you -- the
> expectation is that we will be asking PTOMAINE for another massive
> show of apathy towards a proposal to wind it down and transfer its
> "assets" over to the group dmm proposes, or elsewhere in I*.
>
>> 1) I'm having hard time grasping BGP VPN's as part of "Global Routing
>> Operations".
>
> The BGP4+ VPN hack distributes "protocol-x" NLRI around your iBGP 
> network.
> Although one might argue that risk of NLRI flood (or death by 
> oscillation) is
> contained solely within ASes doing this, some of these ASes are 
> important
> transit networks.   Moreover, there is every indication that BGP VPN 
> will not
> remain solely an interior BGP hack.
>
> Any bets on how many orders of magnitude more VPN NLRI there
> is in aggregate compared to IPv6 NLRI, and how that will change over 
> time?  :-)
>
>> And, at least the tentative description seems still rather vague and
>> open-ended.  At least for the charter, a more specific goals would be
>> preferable so everything related to operational aspects of BGP would 
>> not
>> be on the table.
>
> I'm sure dmm would be happy to discuss wordsmithing especially
> if you have time and energy to help manage the BOF (and BOF->WG) 
> process.
>
> 	Sean.
>