Hi all, Have the authors and Jeff Haas managed to discuss (and maybe resolve) what was raised by Jeff?
Let’s extend WGLC with another week - I’m also not seeing a lot of feedback on whether this document should progress. GROW please take a look and let the group know how the continue. Kind regards, Job On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:42 Tim Evens (tievens) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Best route for sure, unless add-paths is used. I would like to understand > your use-case more... When you mention the customer has to use "parallel > BGP sessions for active route state," are you saying that the customer > needs to establish multiple "monitoring" BGP peering sessions in order to > obtain what would have been available via BMP Adj-RIB-In Post Policy > monitoring? > > > Thanks, > Tim > > On 11/16/18, 1:26 AM, "GROW on behalf of Zhuangshunwan" < > [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > I do wish to get this point resolved. We have inconsistent pressure > from our own customer base as to whether they want to monitor best bgp vs.. > "please give me something to let me stop needing parallel BGP sessions > for active route state". > [Shunwan] IMO, Section 5.2 of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02 > describe a method to send best ecmp group to BMP Station. > BMP client can signal add-paths capability to BMP Station via BMP Peer > UP message, then BMP Station will know that the client will send multiple > NLRI for one destination. > That is my understanding. > Per my limited knowledge about BMP, I don't understand why we need > "parallel BGP sessions for active route state", Sorry. Can you explain it > in detail? > >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
