Thanks Sue!
We don’t have to always reinvent the wheel (at least not every time 😊) I’m aware of at least 1 implementation streaming LSDB for TE consumers (gRPC) There are most probably some other vendor specific encodings/methods to steam to do that I believe – there has been some work around Kafka. Would be great to do some study around existing solutions, see what worked, what didn’t’ (and why) Cheers, Jeff Jeff: An interim sounds like a good plan. [IDR-chair hat] Alvaro has indicated that since all of the proposal received on the IDR list are new protocol proposals, - Capturing IDR’s input on BGP-LS problems and potential solutions is appropriate for IDR as BGP-LS home.
- Refining any potential non-BGP solutions is outside of the scope of IDR.
[IDR-chair hat off] [rtgwg WG member] I’d love to attend an interim on this topic. Sue Hares From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2022 3:40 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org; Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com>; g...@ietf.org g...@ietf.org <g...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol Speaking as RTGWG chair: Robert - I don’t think we’d have enough time to accommodate a good discussion during IETF114 (we got only 1 slot), however would be happy to provide a platform for an interim. The topic is important and personally (being a very large BGP-LS user) I’d like to see it progressing. Hi Acee, Yes, by all means input from the operator's community is needed. It can be collected through LSR WG, IDR WG or GROW WG. RTGWG could also contribute. We have already seen input from some operators and their opinion on adding and distributing more and more link state protocol and topology data in BGP. More such input is very welcome. And to your point about RFC9086 - I see nothing wrong in keeping BGP information in BGP. So IGP Monitoring Protocol does not target to shut down BGP-LS. It only aims to remove 100% of non BGP sourced information from it. Controllers which today listen to BGP-LS need a number of information sources and that spread will only keep increasing as more inputs are becoming necessary for its computations. On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:32 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: Hi Robert, Thank you. I was not planning to present it in the upcoming IETF. > Let’s see how many stakeholders actually want to this protocol - then we can talk about a WG home. An alternative approach could be to see how many stakeholders do not want to further (for no good reason) to trash BGP. That to me would be in this specific case a much better gauge. In that case, it seems to me that this discussion should be relegated to IDR. Note that there is already non-IGP information transported in BGP-LS, e.g., Egress Peer Engineering (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9086/). I implemented this on our data center routers (NXOS) years and it is solely BGP specific. Thanks, Acee On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 9:54 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: Speaking as WG chair: Dear LSR WG, Based on ongoing discussion in respect to the future of BGP-LS I committed myself to put together an alternate proposal. The main goal is not to just publish a -00 version of the draft using different encapsulation. The goal is to make a useful tool which can help to export link state information from network elements as well as assist in network observability. The IGP Monitoring Protocol (IMP) draft has been posted and should be available at: One of the key points I wanted to accomplish was full backwards compatibility with TLVs defined for BGP-LS. In parallel other formats (optional) are also supported. The PUB-SUB nature or FILTERING capabilities are in the spec however as noted in the deployment section there is no expectation that this should be supported directly on routers. Concept of Producer's Proxies has been introduced to support this added functionality as well as provide fan-out (analogy to BGP route reflectors). I encourage everyone interested to take a look and provide comments. At this point this document is nothing more than my individual submission. Offline I have had few conversations with both operators and vendors expressing some level of interest in this work. How we proceed further (if at all :) depends on WG feedback. PS, I do believe this work belongs in LSR WG pretty squerly. Let’s see how many stakeholders actually want to this protocol - then we can talk about a WG home. By stakeholders, I mean operators and vendors who are committed to implementing and deploying it - not simply those who you are able to enlist as co-authors. Note that our IETF 114 LSR agenda is full (with multiple agenda items not making the cut). Thanks, Acee
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
i...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr |
