Hi Shunwan, Thanks for the comments, answers inline.
Camilo > On 11 Jul 2019, at 06:29, Zhuangshunwan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Thank you for introducing this very useful draft. > > Few comments: > > #1 > 1. Introduction > > For a given prefix, multiple paths with different path status, e.g., > the "best-path", the "best-external-path" and so on, may co-exist in > the BGP module upon the local policy processing. In addition, during > ... > [Shunwan] How to convey multiple paths from BMP Client to BMP Server? > I did not see a description of the relevant mechanism in this draft. [Camilo] We rely on the mechanism described in draft https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-lucente-bmp-tlv-00.txt <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-lucente-bmp-tlv-00.txt> for this, specifically on the TLV of the RM msg proposed there. We mention this on the abstract and on the first paragraph of section 2. If there is anything not clear there, please let us know. > > #2 > 2.1. Path Type > +--------+----------------------+ > | Value | Path type | > +-------------------------------+ > | 0x0000 | Unknown | > | 0x0001 | Best path | > | 0x0002 | Best external path | > | 0x0004 | Primary path | > | 0x0008 | Backup path | > | 0x0010 | Non-installed path | > | 0x0020 | Unreachable next-hop | > +--------+----------------------+ > > Table 1: Path Type > [Shunwan] > Since Path Type has 4 octets space, The Value in above table should be in > 4-octet-style. [Camilo] I see the point, yes. > Regarding "Unreachable next-hop", if I understand correctly, should it be > "Unreachable NLRI" ? > [Camilo] Here we specifically try to signal that a path’s next-hop is not reachable, therefore invaliding the path. > > Thanks, > Shunwan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: GROW [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Camilo Cardona > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 11:04 AM > To: [email protected] [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [GROW] Path marking using BMP - TLVs > > Hello GROW, > > We just submitted draft > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-00.txt. The idea > of the draft is to signal the state of the path in the FIB using the > mechanism described in draft-lucente-bmp-tlv-00 > (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-lucente-bmp-tlv-00.txt), which was introduced > this week. > > Feedback is, as always, welcome. > > If possible, we would like to have a couple of minutes to present it in > Montreal (probably better if done next to the presentation of > draft-lucente-bmp-tlv-00). > > A good part of this document was inspired by other draft, > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bgp-path-marking-00, that we proposed some > years ago. In that draft, similar information was signaled using communities. > Back then, there were some concerns of this data potentially messing with the > BGP decision process, something that should not be a problem when using BMP. > > Thanks, > Camilo Cardona > > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
