And I'm assuming this is not going to be "over complicated" by things like VRF's... ?
I mean, you don't want to take the extra step of also adding some kind of naming specificity in the case there are also other local copies of tables used on the same router... ? Just asking. I'm wondering if people want to have that capability as well. John Kemp On 4/19/17 12:58 PM, Tim Evens (tievens) wrote: > Hi John. > > On 4/19/17, 12:42 PM, "GROW on behalf of John Kemp" <[email protected] on > behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >> Just noticed these. I'm curious why they weren't combined >> into one. Seems like it's the same topic. > > [TE] The primary reason to have them separated was so that we can work on > them independently of each other without becoming to monolithic with the > updates. > >> Other question was, just to make sure, this is everything. >> So you got PRE, LOC, and POST covered now, correct? > > [TE] Yes and more. We have Pre/Post-Policy RIB-In, Pre/Post-Policy RIB-Out, > and Loc-RIB. With these two additional drafts, we should have complete > monitoring coverage for BGP of what the router "sees," what the router "does > to received," what the router "sends," and what the router "uses." > >> JohN Kemp > > > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
