Paolo, Thanks for letting me know about our squatting. I was not aware of it. I'm investigating now.
Regards, Jakob. -----Original Message----- From: Paolo Lucente <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 9:23 AM To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [GROW] Support for Enterprise-specific TLVs in BMP Hi Jakob, Surely - let me send you in a separate unicast email an actual example, taken from the Cisco bug tracker, of proprietary information elements squatted in public space. That said, i rather wonder whether, from a protocol design perspective, the question you ask is the right one to raise. Paolo On 26/10/2020 16:43, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote: > 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
