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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
