Then the same is true for RIB-in. Since every RIB-out matches a RIB-in somewhere else, the input must equal the output in the aggregate. Unless BGP leaks... :)
Thanks, Jakob. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 7:16 PM > To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[email protected]> > Cc: Gert Doering <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [GROW] Peer-groups in BMP adj-rib-out (was Re: I-D Action: > draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-00.txt) > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 08:43:27PM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote: > > That will certainly be the case most of the time. > > However, the time when you really want to know will > > invariably be the time when a peer did not get exactly what the rest > > of the peer group got. > > Two observations: > - This argument eventually degenerates into "you need to monitor the rib-out > of every single peer". > - Due to state compression of the BMP feed vs. the BGP feed, you're going to > lose stuff anyway. > > I believe anyone expecting *any* implementation of BMP for rib-out to be a > perfectly stateful match for their announced BGP has unrealistic > expectations. > > -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
