Hi, > tools. I'm going to summarize it and send the list to the mailing-list.
Below is the list of tools and some papers. * Tools. - libbgpdump written in C. <https://bitbucket.org/ripencc/bgpdump/wiki/Home> - zebra-dump-parser written in Perl. <https://github.com/rfc1036/zebra-dump-parser> - java-mrt library written in Java. <https://github.com/paaguti/java-mrt> - UCLA bgpparser written in C++. <http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/software/bgpparser.html> - mrtparse written in Python. <https://github.com/YoshiyukiYamauchi/mrtparse> - bgpdump2 written in C. <https://github.com/yasuhiro-ohara-ntt/bgpdump2> * route leaks - <https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/157-RIPE-69-Routing-WG.pdf> <https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10076/> - <http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-00.pdf> - <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sriram-route-leak-detection-mitigation-00> (to be presented in the IDR WG meeting in Dallas) * AS relations - Linxin Gao, "On inferring autonomous system relationships in the internet", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON), Volume 9 Issue 6, December 2001, Pages 733-745. <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=504611.504616> - Giotsas, V., "Valley-free violation in Internet routing - Analysis based on BGP Community data", <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6363987> - "AS Relationships, Customer Cones, and Validation" <http://www.caida.org/~amogh/papers/asrank-IMC13.pdf> - "A Survey of Interdomain Routing Policies" <https://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe/papers/survey.pdf> Best regards, Yasu From: Yasuhiro Ohara <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [GROW] A new bgpdump tool Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:27:05 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > 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 > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
