Henk,

> On Sep 21, 2022, at 9:45 AM, Henk Smit <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> > But this will hide BGP churn for a given NET to be detectable by BMP 
> > receiver. Is this a good thing ? 
> 
> The question is: how expensive is it to report everything bit-for-bit to the 
> BMP collector? 
> If you want to report everything, you have to store everything.
> Which will require bufferspace. How much? You don't know in advance. Might be 
> a lot. 

Considerable in some cases.  This is the core reason why BMP has distinct modes 
for route-monitoring (RFC 7854, §4.6) and route mirroring (RFC 7854, §4.7)

The state compression that happens for route-monitoring is normally a feature.  
However, it means that BMP in route-monitoring mode with state compression is 
problematic for diagnosing certain types of BGP Update churn.

In my experience, the bulk of customer needs are met with route-monitoring with 
state compression.

One level of compromise that the protocol enables, but there's no RFC-specified 
mechanism for control, is tracing subsets of BGP state verbatim via 
route-mirroring on a dynamic basis.  Instead of trying to shove the entire 
firehose of BGP from all of your feeds down the BMP drinking straw verbatim, 
use route-mirroring for targeted tracing.

Even then, there's possibility of slow TCP speakers or other forms of 
backpressure causing you to eventually have too much to buffer.

> The current way of doing things allows the BMP implementation on a router to 
> be pretty efficient. 
> When BGP receives routes, you store them in the BRIB. You don't store 
> anything special for BMP (expect maybe timestamps, or other meta-data). 
> When BMP on a router is going to send BMP updates, it just walks the BRIB, 
> and sees which NLRI/routes have not been sent to the collector yet. 
> BGP needs only 1 bit of information for that (to be precise: 1 bit per BMP 
> session per NLRI/route). 

Roughly, yes.  Maybe a bit more state if you want to do bgp-style state 
suppression. (You have to track what you previously sent.)

The rib-out feed is considerably uglier.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to