On the specific EoR matter being discussed, i'd express a +1 to the idea
that EoR must be sent per AF -- and also per "BMP artifact" (ie.
pre-policy, post-policy, partial RIBs, etc.).
Also, yes, to your question Luuk: IMO, an EoR should be sent for empty
tables as well.
Paolo
On 16/9/22 12:15, Luuk Hendriks wrote:
[ .. ]
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
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
