Mr. Kemp, Thank you for the information.
I have been kindly informed, also by others, of other BGP dump parsing tools. I'm going to summarize it and send the list to the mailing-list. Yes, I'm interested in route leaks. Now I'm wondering what kind of functions are beneficial in a BGP dump tool to help people check or find the route leaks. Please let me know if you have some idea. Best regards, Yasu From: John Kemp <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [GROW] A new bgpdump tool Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:22:34 -0800 Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > For the parser part, you might consider looking at the UCLA > bgpparser to see how they dealt with certain issues. > > http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/software/bgpparser.html > > For path questions, I'm guessing you might want to be looking > at route leaks. If that is the case, > > https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/157-RIPE-69-Routing-WG.pdf > https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10076/ > > The related definitions in GROW: > http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-00.pdf > > /jgk > > > On 3/4/15 5:17 PM, Yasuhiro Ohara wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm developing a new tool that can read routeviews >> RIB files (MRT v2 RIB format). I call it "bgpdump2". It is similar, but >> with a few additional features, to the libbgpdump. >> It is going to be open source (the process is on-going). >> >> This e-mail is to consult if there is some interest in such a tool. >> I'm considering to provide a presentation in Dallas. >> >> The motivations of creating a brand new tool are below. >> 1. libbgpdump seemed to have some rooms to speed up, since >> it seems to issue many small-sized read operations, rather than >> making a small number of large-sized read operations. >> 2. I wanted to add a few additional features (explained below) >> to such tools. >> 3. it didn't seem easy to modify the libbgpdump for me. >> >> The additional features include longest prefix matching using a >> PATRICIA table inside the command, diff'ing the prefixes >> between peers (Note, the BGP prefixes are stored per peer >> in the RIB file), and to display of some statistics of RIBs per peer. >> >> I am from a R&D division of a tier-1 ISP (i.e., NTT Communications), >> and was trying to compare BGP full route routing table instances, >> possibly between ISPs. I expect that such a tool can contribute to >> get a detailed view on how/why BGP full route routing tables are >> different. For example, we're going to need the longest matching >> lookup function to see if the differentiating prefix is covered by a >> shorter prefix. >> >> However I'm not greatly succeeding so far, since the reason for >> a prefix that is differentiating depends on case by case >> (and there are various reasons including "the business relationship"), >> and I could not get a summarized view after the comparison of >> (say) two BGP full route routing tables. >> >> I would like to get some feedback from the community on these things. >> I can provide in Dallas some more details of my tool, >> some performance benchmark of it, >> and some statistics of RouteView's RIB files. >> >> Would you kindly share your opinions on this ? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best regards, >> Yasu >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
