On 10/4/18, 12:41 PM, "GROW on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" wrote:
: Depending on BGP peering session type (IBGP, IBGP route reflector
: client, EBGP) the candidate routes that make up the Pre-Policy Adj-
: RIB-Out do not contain all local-rib routes. Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out
+1 Support
Serpil
From: GROW on behalf of Job Snijders
Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 9:04 AM
To: Grow Mailing List
Subject: [GROW] WG Adoption Call: draft-scudder-grow-bmp-registries-change
2018.09.25-2018.10.09
Dear working group,
Feedback from the working group seems to indicate a
Qing,
I can also provide some input on the draft as there are ones we have been
wanting to add as a correction to the existing types.
Thanks,
Tim
On 10/4/18, 12:16 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" wrote:
Qing,
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:28:30AM -0700, Qing Yang wrote:
> Points well take
Sorry for the dumb question, but should I now submit a formal general request
to https://www.iana.org/form/protocol-assignment for first come first serve
allocations? If so, I can submit that right away. I'll work with Cisco XE
folks to correct their hijacked usage of this range.
Thanks,
Tim
Jeffrey Haas wrote on 04/10/2018 20:51:
Based on the primary use case for loc-rib (avoid the need for a parallel BGP
session to your BMP rib-in session), I suspect what's intended is "send the
route that's eligible to be sent to BGP".
probably yes, although this may give an obscure view about w
[Please note that this message covers prior discussion among the BMP
loc-rib/adj-rib-out authors and the grow chairs and ADs. This is mostly to
make sure we are open in our process.]
There are currently multiple implementations of the BMP adj-rib-out and
loc-rib Internet-Drafts in progress.
As n
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:00:22PM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> Title : Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol
> (BMP)
This question is motivated by an implementation in-progress:
In section 5, we have the following text:
: Loc-RIB contains all routes f
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:59:58PM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations WG of the IETF.
>
> Title : Support for Adj-RIB-Out in BGP M
Qing,
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:28:30AM -0700, Qing Yang wrote:
> Points well taken... NLRIs will be an improvement in terminology over
> prefixes, too?
>
> And yes, type 8 as it is worded today, is the reason that I think one
> cannot derive the number of prefixes rejected by inbound policy fro
Points well taken... NLRIs will be an improvement in terminology over
prefixes, too?
And yes, type 8 as it is worded today, is the reason that I think one
cannot derive the number of prefixes rejected by inbound policy from type 7
and 8. So I definitely agree with you that an update to RFC7584 wou
Hi Qing,
Pre-Policy vs Post-Policy stat reports addresses this, but isn't so clear in
RFC7854. Compare the Adj-RIB-In gauge for pre-policy to post-policy and we
have the number of NLRI's (prefixes) that did not make it through the policy.
While this does indicate the number of prefixes that
11 matches
Mail list logo
