Hi, On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:15:09PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > We briefly discussed this during the bar BoF for BMP last IETF. My > apologies for not presenting text before this point. > > While there are use cases where an end-user may want per-peer rib-out state, > some applications may not quite that level of granularity of information. > In many cases, it is sufficient to know what route will be sent to the peers > that belong to the BGP's peer-group/update-group. (I'll be using peer-group > for the remainder of this e-mail.) > > In such cases, the adj-rib-out in its current form can be quite noisy. It > effectively can turn the BMP feed into trying to squeeze the entire firehose > of BGP traffic through the straw of a single session.
"per peer group" would actually match our use-case for rib-out much better than "per individual peer". So, support for that idea. On the actual implementation, I abstain, as I haven't read up on the technical details enough to make a qualified comment. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow