On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello John, > > As we have previously discussed on and off list the current BMP draft does > not meet customer's requirements in the space of BMP monitoring.
As discussed, it does not meet some customers' requirements. It does meet others, such as mine. > It almost adds no value in comparison with sending full BGP table without > any outbound policy by add-paths option ALL so in that light it is just a > duplication of different ways to accomplish the same. I feel that it does add value in that my receiver application in the BMP case does not need to be a BGP protocol speaker with risk of impact to the control plane. > In particular it regenerates updated as stored in Adj_RIB_In which > automatically means that any errors or even order of attributes your peer is > sending will not be seen at the management station. This is not relevant in my case. > I asked to add new optional type called "Session Monitoring" which would > allow to encapsulate and reply to management station raw PDUs however it > seems from the below -05 to -06 delta that my suggestion has been ignored. It wasn't ignored. It was discussed, and as the proposal grew to try to encompass error cases and include timestamps, and the lack of clarity around potential for duplication of the same information between the proposed optional type and existing required types, I preferred to recognize the progress we have made and address new requirements - which I recognize are reasonable for *some* use cases beyond mine - in a new draft. Stephen > I think we have a chance to deliver something much more useful and > meaningful to customers without compromising or putting at risk existing > implementations. > > Please kindly reconsider. > > Best regards, > R. > >> Folks, >> >> Changes between -05 and -06 are: >> >> - Added "Lifecycle of a BMP Session" section. It seemed as though people >> really needed a little more context as to the expected sequence. >> >> - Changed Message Length to 4 bytes. (See >> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-01 for some context as to why this >> seemed like a good idea.) >> >> - Changed Initiation Message string encoding from ASCII to UTF-8. >> >> - Specified that Version 0 is reserved. >> >> Regards, >> >> --John >> >> On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:14 AM,<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations >>> Working Group of the IETF. >>> >>> Title : BGP Monitoring Protocol >>> Author(s) : John Scudder >>> Rex Fernando >>> Stephen Stuart >>> Filename : draft-ietf-grow-bmp-06.txt >>> Pages : 17 >>> Date : 2011-12-01 >>> >>> This document proposes a simple protocol, BMP, which can be used to >>> monitor BGP sessions. BMP is intended to provide a more convenient >>> interface for obtaining route views for research purpose than the >>> screen-scraping approach in common use today. The design goals are >>> to keep BMP simple, useful, easily implemented, and minimally >>> service-affecting. BMP is not suitable for use as a routing >>> protocol. >>> >>> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-06.txt >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-06.txt >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GROW mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GROW mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
