What proprietary information elements are you thinking of? Maybe we can standardize them.
Regards, Jakob. > On Oct 26, 2020, at 6:16 AM, Paolo Lucente <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear GROW WG Rockstars, > > I would like to get some feedback / encourage some conversation around the > topic of supporting Enterprise-specific TLVs in BMP (or > draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-01) so to see whether it is appropriate to > ask the Chairs for WG adoption. > > Context: with the Loc-RIB (draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib) and Adj-Rib-Out > (RFC 8671) efforts we increased the possible vantage points where BGP can be > monitored; then the goal of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv is to make all BMP > message types extensible with TLVs since by RFC 7854 only a subset of them do > support TLVs. > > Motivation: i would like to supplement what is already written in the > Introduction section of the draft "Vendors need the ability to define > proprietary Information Elements, because, for example, they are delivering a > pre-standards product, or the Information Element is in some way commercially > sensitive.", in short prevent TLV code point squatting. > > Successful IETF-standardized telemetry protocols, ie. SNMP and IPFIX, do > provision to extend standard data formats / models in order to pass > enterprise-specific information - including the fact that not everything can > be represented in a standard format, especially when data does touch upon > internals (ie. states, structures, etc.) of an exporting device. This is also > true, more recently, with the possibility to extend standard YANG models. > > In this context, in order to further foster adoption of the protocol, BMP > should follow a similar path like the other telemetry protocols. > > Approach: reserving the first bit of a TLV type to flag whether what follows > is a private or a standard TLV and, if private, provide the PEN in the first > 4-bytes of the TLV value is a simple and successful mechanism to achieve the > motivation that was merely copied from IPFIX, a case of nothing new under the > Sun. > > Current feedback: the only feedback that was received was last year in > Singapore and it was along the lines of: we are at IETF and we should not > open the backdoor for / facilitate insertion of non-standard elements. > > Thoughts? Opinions? Tomatoes? > > Paolo > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
