Re: [GROW] Working Group Call for draft-msri-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats (start 06/Dec/2023 end 06/Jan/2024)

, Shunwan From: Mukul Srivastava [mailto:msri=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 11:01 PM To: Zhuangshunwan ; Job Snijders ; grow@ietf.org Subject: Re: [GROW] Working Group Call for draft-msri-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats (start 06/Dec/2023 end 06/Jan/2024) Hi Shunwan I looked

Re: [GROW] The GROW WG has placed draft-msri-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi Thomas, I think the suggestions of yours are very good. If the network operator can obtain such information, they will have the opportunity to intervene in the network as soon as possible, which is better than waiting for the BGP session torn down. Best Regards, Shunwan > -Original

Re: [GROW] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7854 (7703)

Hi Paolo, Thank you for your detailed and comprehensive summary! I think your solution B is better. Best Regards, Shunwan > -Original Message- > From: Paolo Lucente [mailto:pa...@ntt.net] > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2023 7:28 AM > To: Zhuangshunwan ; Dhananjay Patki > (

Re: [GROW] Working Group Call for draft-msri-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats (start 06/Dec/2023 end 06/Jan/2024)

I), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge. Waiting to hear your opinions, thanks. Best regards, Shunwan > -Original Message- > From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhuangshunwan > Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2023 3:15 PM

Re: [GROW] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7854 (7703)

Hi All, I'm a little confused about the usage of L flag in Statistics Report messages. When Statistics Report message is used to report the statistics of Adj-RIB-Out, I agree that the L flag is not required, for the pre-policy or post-policy is clearly specified for each statistics type: # The

Re: [GROW] Working Group Call for draft-msri-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats (start 06/Dec/2023 end 06/Jan/2024)

Hi Job, GROW, I have read the draft and support its adoption. Best regards, Shunwan > -Original Message- > From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 11:49 PM > To: grow@ietf.org > Subject: [GROW] Working Group Call for

Re: [GROW] Working Group Call for Adoption draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv (start 30/Mar/2023 end 21/Apr/2023)

Hi all, I support adoption of this draft. I think it is a very useful extension of BMP to convey the status of a BGP path from BMP client to BMP server. Best regards, Shunwan > -Original Message- > From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders > Sent: Thursday,

Re: [GROW] [Idr] RFC7854: EoR

Hi Robert, “BMP for BGP-LS” should be “BMP for BGP-LS Address family”, sorry for the omissions. Best Regards, Shunwan From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 8:33 PM To: Zhuangshunwan Cc: Tim Evens (tievens) ; Jeffrey Haas ; grow@ietf.org; Maximilian

Re: [GROW] [Idr] RFC7854: EoR

] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 3:54 PM To: Tim Evens (tievens) Cc: Jeffrey Haas ; Zhuangshunwan ; grow@ietf.org; Maximilian Wilhelm Subject: Re: [GROW] [Idr] RFC7854: EoR Tim, Why not just send BGP Message Type 5 verbatim ? Are you saying that BMP is not sending this message to BMP receivers

Re: [GROW] [Idr] RFC7854: EoR

the controller collects BGP routes through BMP and correlates them with traffic information collected by IPFIX to build a traffic matrix. Thanks, Shunwan From: Tim Evens (tievens) [mailto:tiev...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 8:03 AM To: Jeffrey Haas ; Zhuangshunwan Cc: Luuk Hendriks

Re: [GROW] [Idr] RFC7854: EoR

Hi Robert, Which use cases require such accurate BGP churn information? Thanks, Shunwan From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 1:52 PM To: Paolo Lucente Cc: grow@ietf.org; Maximilian Wilhelm Subject: Re: [GROW] [Idr] RFC7854:

Re: [GROW] [Idr] RFC7854: EoR

Hi Tim and All, I think the idea of a "BMP route refresh" would be appreciated, it will helps keep the information synchronized between the BMP Server and the BMP Client. Thanks, Shunwan From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Evens (tievens) Sent: Tuesday, September 20,

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit (Ends 02/May/2022)

Hi GROW WG, I have read this document and participated in the previous discussion of the proposal. I think it is a very useful document and I support its adoption. Kindest Regards, Shunwan > -Original Message- > From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders >

Re: [GROW] [Sidrops] ASPA and Route Server (was RE: IXP Route Server question)

ethod, we can also create a local RS-Client to RS ASPA database. Kind Regards, Shunwan > -Original Message- > From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) [mailto:kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov] > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 3:01 AM > To: Zhuangshunwan ; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) > ;

Re: [GROW] [Sidrops] ASPA and Route Server (was RE: IXP Route Server question)

> -Original Message- > From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) [mailto:kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 5:09 AM > To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) ; Jeffrey Haas > Cc: sidr...@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org; Zhuangshunwan > ; Nick Hilliard > Subject: RE: [GROW] [Si

Re: [GROW] [Sidrops] ASPA and Route Server (was RE: IXP Route Server question)

: Monday, March 21, 2022 11:13 PM To: Gyan Mishra ; Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) Cc: Ben Maddison ; sidr...@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org; Zhuangshunwan ; Nick Hilliard Subject: RE: [Sidrops] [GROW] ASPA and Route Server (was RE: IXP Route Server question) Route servers are a distraction for ASPA. ASPA

Re: [GROW] [Sidrops] ASPA and Route Server (was RE: IXP Route Server question)

Hi Sriram and all, > An RS client of an RS (transparent or not) includes the RS AS in their > SPAS/ASPA. The RS client also includes in its SPAS/ASPA any AS with whom it > connects in the control plane via the RS. > > The idea is that a path segment ASx-RS-ASy (where ASx and ASy are RS-clients >

Re: [GROW] IXP Route Server question

Hi Sriram, Thanks for your pointers! I will read them carefully. Best regards, Shunwan > -Original Message- > From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) [mailto:kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 12:45 AM > To: Zhuangshunwan > Cc: grow@ietf.org; s

Re: [GROW] IXP Route Server question

Hi Sriram, > The ASPA verification draft treats the relationship of RS to RS-client as > similar > to that of Provider to Customer. Seems reasonable? The AS of an RS client > includes the RS's AS in its ASPA as a "Provider". > IMO, the ASPA verification draft regards the relationship between RS

Re: [GROW] On LC for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv (ends December 1st 2021)

Hi Matthias, Indeed, adding an ADD-PATH capability TLV to the Route Monitoring message will be a good use case. In this way, when the BMP server parses the BGP Update message containing the ADD-PATH ID, it does not need to check the related Peer Up notification message again. BR, Shunwan

Re: [GROW] On LC for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv (ends December 1st 2021)

Hi GROW WG, I have read this draft. I think It is very useful to provide a unified TLV mechanism for various BMP messages. I support publication of this draft. Thanks, Shunwan -Original Message- From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders Sent: Thursday,

Re: [GROW] some questions from {RC, LC, EC} analysis presentation in GROW

on the Internet. Looking forward to more interesting output from your research work! Regards, Shunwan -Original Message- From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) [mailto:kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 1:07 AM To: Zhuangshunwan Cc: GROW WG ; IDR Subject: Re: some questions

Re: [GROW] some questions from {RC, LC, EC} analysis presentation in GROW

10:28 AM To: Zhuangshunwan ; Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) Cc: IDR ; GROW WG Subject: RE: some questions from {RC, LC, EC} analysis presentation in GROW > Zhuangshunwan wrote : > then if other communities "ASN:666" are widespread in the wild They are. I am the operator of one of

Re: [GROW] some questions from {RC, LC, EC} analysis presentation in GROW

Sorry, there is a typo, 263:666 should be 2603:666. -Original Message- From: Idr [mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhuangshunwan Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 9:57 AM To: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) Cc: IDR ; GROW WG Subject: Re: [Idr] some questions from {RC, LC, EC} analysis

Re: [GROW] some questions from {RC, LC, EC} analysis presentation in GROW

ck hole community attribute too? As far as I know, the other two examples are 263:666 and 5511:666. Regards, Shunwan -Original Message- From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) [mailto:kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:07 AM To: Zhuangshunwan Cc: Jeffrey Haas ; GR

Re: [GROW] some questions from {RC, LC, EC} analysis presentation in GROW

Hi Sriram, The community attribute example 3356:666 on page 10 may not match the actual function. " Example: AS path = 25160 3356 12956 6147 and RC = 3356:666  This means that the client is at AS 6147 (origin AS) and AS 3356 is the RTBH provider  AS Distance to RTBH provider = 2  Propagation

Re: [GROW] Question about BGP Large Communities

Hi, In my opinion, when we apply a new function from IANA, we will have to deploy some extra route policies to set and parse the specific function as your suggested way. With the increase of new functions, the route policies deployed will become more and more complicated. Best regards,

[GROW] Typo in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Parameters

Hi WG, There is one Typo in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Parameters: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml Origin: 15 Number of routes in post-policy Adj-RIB-Outy [RFC8671] Should be: 15 Number of routes in post-policy

Re: [GROW] BMP @ IETF 106 Hackathon, GROW WG Feedback

Greetings, First of all, thank the BMP Hackathon team for doing a great job! Regarding BMP Peer Up message (Further, we should include the BMP Peer Down message), the key point is how to handle the enable / disable monitoring of per Peer per afi/safi granularity. For example, if there is a

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-lucente-bmp-tlv

Support the adoption of this draft. Shunwan From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paolo Lucente Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 2:06 AM To: grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org Subject: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-lucente-bmp-tlv Dear GROWers, We would like to request WG

Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib terminology edits

Hi, Regarding VRF/Table Name TLV: Based on my understanding of RFC7854, I think the processing of VRF/Table Name TLV can be the same as Type 0 String TLV of BMP Initiation Message in RFC7854: The VRF/Table Name TLV MAY be included multiple times. If multiple strings are included, their ordering

Re: [GROW] Path marking using BMP - TLVs

Hi Camilo, Thanks for your quick response, please check my reply inline with [Shunwan2]. BR, Shunwan From: Camilo Cardona [mailto:juancamilo.card...@imdea.org] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 1:31 AM To: Zhuangshunwan Cc: grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org ; draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org

[GROW] The L flag question on RFC7854

Dear authors and WG: Section 4.2 says: * The L flag, if set to 1, indicates that the message reflects the post-policy Adj-RIB-In (i.e., its path attributes reflect the application of inbound policy). It is set to 0 if the message reflects the pre-policy

Re: [GROW] New Version Notification for draft-xu-grow-bmp-route-policy-attr-trace-00.txt(Internet mail)

...@swisscom.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:40 PM To: olive...@tencent.com; internet-dra...@ietf.org; Zhuangshunwan ; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) ; Lizhenbin Cc: grow@ietf.org Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-xu-grow-bmp-route-policy-attr-trace-00.txt

Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-chen-grow-enhanced-as-loop-detection-00.txt

Hi Robert, Thanks a lot for the comment! Please find reply inlines with [Shunwan]. Best Regards, Shunwan From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:48 AM To: grow@ietf.org Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action:

Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior - ENDS: Nov 27, 2018 (11/27/2018)

Support. It's a useful document. BTW, it's useful to collect more default behaviors that vary from vendor to vendor: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zhuang-grow-monitoring-bgp-parameters-00.txt Comments and cooperation are welcome！ Thanks, Shunwan -Original Message- From: GROW

Re: [GROW] working group last call draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib (ends 2018.11.26)

Hi Jeff & GROWers, Firstly, I support this draft. Because some customers ask us for this feature, and we are also implementing this feature, let's share our thoughts on this point. Inline with [Shunwan]. Best regards, Shunwan -Original Message- From: GROW

Re: [GROW] working group last call draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out (ends 2018.11.26)

Hi GROW, I support publication of this draft. It is a useful feature. Best Regards, Shunwan -Original Message- From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 10:09 PM To: grow@ietf.org Subject: [GROW] working group last call

Re: [GROW] bmp loc-rib monitoring scope question (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02.txt)

Qing, Inline with [Shunwan]. Thanks, Shunwan From: Qing Yang [mailto:qy...@arista.com] Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 2:27 AM To: Jeffrey Haas Cc: Zhuangshunwan ; grow@ietf.org Subject: Re: [GROW] bmp loc-rib monitoring scope question (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02

Re: [GROW] bmp loc-rib monitoring scope question (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02.txt)

Jeff, Thank you very much for your clear clarification of the BGP Loc-Rib! I will look into RFC4271 again to understand this point. Thanks, Shunwan -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jh...@pfrc.org] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 10:06 PM To: Zhuangshunwan Cc: Tim Evens

Re: [GROW] bmp rib-out pre-policy questions (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-02.txt)

Inline with [Shunwan] Thanks, Shunwan -Original Message- From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 4:50 AM To: Tim Evens (tievens) Cc: grow@ietf.org Subject: Re: [GROW] bmp rib-out pre-policy questions (was Re: I-D Action:

Re: [GROW] bmp loc-rib monitoring scope question (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02.txt)

Inline with [Shunwan] Thanks, Shunwan -Original Message- From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 5:23 AM To: Tim Evens (tievens) Cc: grow@ietf.org Subject: Re: [GROW] bmp loc-rib monitoring scope question (was Re: I-D Action:

Re: [GROW] bmp loc-rib monitoring scope question (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02.txt)

Strongly support this good idea! I think this new INFO TLV will be very useful. Thanks, Shunwan -Original Message- From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Evens (tievens) Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 5:56 AM To: Jeffrey Haas Cc: grow@ietf.org Subject: Re: [GROW] bmp

Re: [GROW] A question about RFC7854 stats report

) [mailto:tiev...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 12:35 AM To: Zhuangshunwan ; Qing Yang ; Jeffrey Haas Cc: grow@ietf.org Subject: Re: [GROW] A question about RFC7854 stats report I don't see that RFC7854 specifically identifies that stat types cannot repeat. IMO, the RFC text suggests singular

Re: [GROW] WG Adoption Call: draft-scudder-grow-bmp-registries-change 2018.09.25-2018.10.09

Support. Best Regards, Shunwna -Original Message- From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 12:05 AM To: grow@ietf.org Subject: [GROW] WG Adoption Call: draft-scudder-grow-bmp-registries-change 2018.09.25-2018.10.09 Dear

Re: [GROW] Presentation Materials for Meeting: Wed (tomorrow) July 18 2018

Dear all, I request 15 minutes to present draft-gu-grow-bmp-vpn-label-00 & draft-zhuang-grow-monitoring-bgp-parameters-00 in this mail: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg04586.html If time is not allowed, I will present draft-zhuang-grow-monitoring-bgp-parameters-00 only,

Re: [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhuang-grow-monitoring-bgp-parameters-00.txt

Hi Tim, Thanks for your detailed review and good advice to this draft! Reply inline marked [Shunwan] Thanks, Shunwan et al From: Tim Evens (tievens) [mailto:tiev...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 12:27 AM To: Zhuangshunwan ; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW

Re: [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-grow-bmp-vpn-label-00.txt

Hi Tim, Thanks for your detailed review and good advice to this draft! Reply inline marked [Shunwan] Thanks, Shunwan et al -Original Message- From: Tim Evens (tievens) [mailto:tiev...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 12:24 AM To: Zhuangshunwan ; Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP

Re: [GROW] Call for IETF 102 agenda items

Dear Chairs, I request 15 minutes to present draft-gu-grow-bmp-vpn-label-00 & draft-zhuang-grow-monitoring-bgp-parameters-00 Thanks, Shunwan -邮件原件- 发件人: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Job Snijders 发送时间: 2018年6月12日 1:21 收件人: GROW List ; Christopher Morrow 主题: [GROW] Call for

Re: [GROW] call for adoption draft-evens-grow-bmp-local-rib

Support. It is a quite useful work. Kind Regards, Shunwan 发件人: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Peter Schoenmaker 发送时间: 2017年4月19日 21:58 收件人: grow@ietf.org 主题: [GROW] call for adoption draft-evens-grow-bmp-local-rib Hi Group, This is the call for adoption of

Re: [GROW] call for adoption draft-evens-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out

I support adoption of this work as a co-author. Kind regards, Shunwan 发件人: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Peter Schoenmaker 发送时间: 2017年4月19日 21:59 收件人: grow@ietf.org 主题: [GROW] call for adoption draft-evens-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out Hi Group, This is the call for adoption of

Re: [GROW] WG Adoption call for: draft-snijders-grow-large-communities-usage - Dec 6 2016

Support. - Shunwan 发件人：Christopher Morrow 收件人：grow-cha...@ietf.org,grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org, 时间：2016-11-16 12:03:21 主题:[GROW] WG Adoption call for: draft-snijders-grow-large-communities-usage - Dec 6 2016 Howdy gentle folk, Let's take a few minutes to discuss and digest whether or not the

[GROW] A question to draft-ietf-grow-bmp-17

Hi all, I have a minor question to draft-ietf-grow-bmp-17. Please help me to understand correctly, thanks. In draft-ietf-grow-bmp-17, Route Monitoring message was documented as follows: 4.6. Route Monitoring Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of ADJ-RIBs-In.