Hi Thomas,
Thanks very much for your support.
Thanks also for letting emerge the interop point, very valid: in fact
one may be inclined to think - wrongly, of course - that since there is
no two devices directly communicating with each other then interop is
not a point. Instead it is still a big thing since devices exporting
telemetry should interop with the (same) collection infrastructure the
same way.
Finally thanks for the suggestions for the text, we will make sure to
incorporate them.
Paolo
On 03/11/2020 12:58, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote:
Hi Paolo and Jeffrey,
First of all I am in support of Enterprise-specific TLVs in BMP. It's important
to be equal to other data-collection protocol such as IPFIX and YANG push.
Jeffrey slide on "Code Point Management" describe perfectly the problem space
and need this draft addresses.
I like to bring some additional context in this discussion which hopefully help
to clarify the need and reason for enterprise registry. About the different
kind of registry types.
As done with bmp-loc-rib
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml
code points can be assigned temporarily as described in section 2 of RFC 7120
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7120#section-2
In order to be eligible, the draft needs to be adopted at a working group and
in a stable condition. That means the applicability of ebit is in early
development where interop ability among vendors is tested and shipped to
network operators to be tested there as well. I suggest to clearly described
this in the ebit draft and maybe consider also RFC 8126 section 4.1 which
describes the differences between enterprise and experimental registry.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.1
Best wishes
Thomas
-----Original Message-----
From: GROW <grow-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Paolo Lucente
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 2:16 PM
To: grow@ietf.org
Subject: [GROW] Support for Enterprise-specific TLVs in BMP
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
GROW@ietf.org
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgrow&data=04%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C8e59dfcfe10049770cdc08d879b1524b%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637393149780032342%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=vGqvOnCFbXFWaaccQplg66o1HF%2FE8rKRGEeZ0MWXSQQ%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
