Sending a peer-down followed by a peer-up seems reasonable to me. Changing these requires a new OPEN message to neighbors, so everything is going to bounce anyway.
Yours? Regards, Jakob. -----Original Message----- From: GROW <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 1:05 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [GROW] BMP loc-rib Peer-Type behavior Authors, In section 4.1, we define a new peer type to cover the loc-rib. This is mostly a pointer to section 4.2 of RFC 7854. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Peer Type | Peer Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Peer Distinguisher (present based on peer type) | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Peer Address (16 bytes) | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Peer AS | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Peer BGP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Timestamp (seconds) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Timestamp (microseconds) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ My question is with regards to Peer AS and Peer BGP ID: If either of those fields are altered on the router, what is the expected behavior in BMP? I have opinions, but would like to see yours. :-) -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
