Hello Larry, John, On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:22:12AM +0000, john heasley wrote: > Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 03:12:55PM -0500, Larry J. Blunk: > > I was asking whether we need > > to include the local (collector's) IP and AS number in addition > > to the peer's IP and AS number. This information is included > > in the BGP4MP_ENTRY type. I suspect this information is > > not really needed and would simply bloat the dump files further. > > Shouldnt the file be stand-alone? not require previous knowledge of it's > source and yet be able to differentiate dumps of one source from another?
You have a point there. If one takes dump files from random sources, it is not possible to determine where they came from. On the other hand, it would add bloat... > > Below is a proposed TABLE_DUMP_NEW type. The > > View and Status fields have been dropped What about a router with multiple bgp instances? I think quagga can do this, don't know of any other bgpd. Wasn't the views field intended to be able to make the distinction between entries from the different bgp instances? (this is also solved by adding Peer IP and AS) > > [..] peer AS size (16 or 32 bit) [..] > > why bother with 2 byte ASNs? Indeed. Why not make Peer AS always 4 bytes? And if we stick to this, how would a parser know the boundary between peer AS and Prefix Length? Except for this, it seems fine to me :-) cheers, -- Erik Romijn RIPE NCC jr. software engineer http://www.ripe.net/ Information Services dept.
pgpkv3ncjQ8XL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
