Hi all,
Vincent, thanks for bringing this up. We've been puzzled about what to
expect exactly, too.
On Thu 15 Sep 2022, 01:08, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
> Anno domini 2022 Jeffrey Haas scripsit:
>
> > (..) the per-AFI/SAFI end of rib is a feature rather than a bug.
> >
>
> I fully agree with that. Having one marker per AF seems to be the much
> better option as it clearly indicates which RIB is fully transmitted/
> recieved/mirrored and also feels simpler to implement in a safe and
> sane way.
>
> (..)
>
> So I'd say lets stay with EoR and clarify it's to be send per AF and
> we should be in a better place.
I agree we should keep the EoRs, and we should not aim for a single
'Done'-message or drop this feature altogether. In addition to having a
EoR per AFI/SAFI, I think there are implementations that distinguish
pre- vs post-policy as well, i.e. sending out two EoRs per AFI/SAFI.
It might be good to clarify the text regarding that exact behavior too.
Are EoRs per pre/post policy useful? As a BMP consumer, I'm in favour.
Related question: should an implementation send out an EoR for empty
tables, i.e. a combination of {AFI/SAFI/policy} for which no actual
routes are stored and thus nothing is sent from the router to the BMP
monitoring station? Could/should one expect an EoR for such a
combination without having received any RouteMonitoring messages for
that combination?
And with BMP for Loc-RIB and Adj-RIB-Out, I guess similar questions
apply, and we actually have to reason about combinations of
{RIB/AFI/SAFI/policy} ?
Thanks,
luuk
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
