In -01 there's no such thing as discarded messages -- if the
monitoring station backpressures the BGP speaker, the BGP speaker
simply stops generating messages until the monitoring station is ready
to consume more messages. This was the most important change between
-00 and -01.
--John
On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
While we are on the topic of suggestions from the great unwashed
masses about this draft, you might also want to consider the
suggestion that the BGP speaker should sequentially number the BMP
messages to the BMP client so that if the sender was forced to
discard msgs because of a broken or stalled TCP connection that
caused local backlog overflow of to-be-sent messages, then the
receiver could at least be aware that these was an interruption in
the feed of msgs by a jump in the sequence number space.
Geoff
On 20/11/2008, at 3:28 AM, Erik Romijn wrote:
Hi all,
John G. Scudder wrote:
Fast forward to present, there's been significant renewed interest
so
we've dusted off the draft and modified the mechanism to make it
more implementor-friendly. I'm hoping that the WG would still,
after the long hiatus, like to adopt the draft.
Having been thinking myself about a similar custom system from time
to time, this looks very useful to me.
Briefly reading through the draft, I do notice that there is no way
to detect the existence of a peer if it sends no prefixes (except
when the session goes down).
This should probably not be a common case, but we do see it from
time to time. It would be useful for us to be able to have this data.
cheers,
Erik Romijn
RIPE NCC RIS
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
