Dear authors of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib,
I have some questions regarding the address family indication in the local-rib
PEER DOWN.
Section 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers says:
"...In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one
emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for
the same Loc-RIB. In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID
should be the same since it represents the same Loc-RIB instance.
Each emulated peer instance MUST send a PEER UP with the OPEN message
indicating the address family capabilities. A BMP receiver MUST
process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which
address family..."
Q1: Should different address families be carried in the same OPEN message or
individual messages with the PEER UP for enabling different address families?
Section 5.3. Peer Down Notification says:
Peer down notification SHOULD use reason code TBD3. Following the
reason is data in TLV format. The following peer Down information
TLV type is defined:
o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII
string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table
name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size
MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. The VRF/Table Name
informational TLV SHOULD be included if it was in the Peer UP.
Q2: Is there a strong motivation of disabling different address families under
the same VRF separately?
Q3: If yes to Q2, then where to carry such information in the PEER DOWN?
Thanks.
Yunan
Best Regards,
[a]
Dr. Yunan Gu
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Beijing
IP Technology Research Division
156 Beiqing Rd
Phone: +86 15001353906
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
