What do you guys think about updating the draft to support TCP
sessions initiated by the receiver to the router? In our environment, we
NAT and FW the BMP server and it's somewhat problematic since we have to
build a static NAT for the BMP server and open a FW rule from the
outside in. It would
Hi Tim,
[tte] I believe that nh-cost might work providing that it would support
a minimal BGP peering session to the BMP router so that the BMP server
(receiver) can initiate requests for NH information on specifics NH's
that it's interested in, and if it's not restricted to just iBGP/RR
configu
Comments inline marked [tte]
On 12/8/11 12:31 PM, "Robert Raszuk"
wrote:
>> The next hop thing is interesting, but I have to ask: can't
you pull
>> it out of the IGP already?
>
> Not possible across IGP
areas/levels.
> However perhaps it would be interesting to discuss
pros/cons of using
Comments inline marked [tte]
> Tim,
> Thanks for your comments.
Your suggestions for the Initiation Message look like good stuff. I
would like to encourage the WG to brainstorm whether there are any other
items to add to the laundry list (without boiling the ocean, please).
I'd also like to e
Hi John,
Thanks for your comments. Your suggestions for the Initiation
Message look like good stuff. I would like to encourage the WG to
brainstorm whether there are any other items to add to the laundry
list (without boiling the ocean, please).
Has anyone proposed BMP extension which would
Tim,
Thanks for your comments. Your suggestions for the Initiation Message look
like good stuff. I would like to encourage the WG to brainstorm whether there
are any other items to add to the laundry list (without boiling the ocean,
please). I'd also like to encourage any interested party in
On 01/12/2011 15:14, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>This document proposes a simple protocol, BMP, which can be used to
>monitor BGP sessions. BMP is intended to provide a more convenient
>interface for obtaining route views for research purpose than the
>screen-scraping approach
A few comments on the current draft.
Thanks Stephen,
-danny
---
Regarding this section:
BMP operates over TCP. All options are controlled by configuration
on the monitored router. No message is ever sent from the monitoring
station to the monitored router. The monitored router MA
Hello Stephen,
> which I recognize are reasonable for *some* use cases
> beyond mine
Different networks have different requirements - that is true. However
IETF usually attempts to address broader requirements pool.
Few comments ...
It almost adds no value in comparison with sending full BG
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> As we have previously discussed on and off list the current BMP draft does
> not meet customer's requirements in the space of BMP monitoring.
As discussed, it does not meet some customers' requirements. It does
meet others, su
Hi John et al.,
Below are some comments.
Initiation Message:
I like having Type-0 (free form text) but I think that some common
information about the router/config should be consistently conveyed.
My top of mind items are:
1) Router product vendor ID, such as the enterprise OID
2) Router
Hello John,
As we have previously discussed on and off list the current BMP draft
does not meet customer's requirements in the space of BMP monitoring.
It almost adds no value in comparison with sending full BGP table
without any outbound policy by add-paths option ALL so in that light it
is
Folks,
Changes between -05 and -06 are:
- Added "Lifecycle of a BMP Session" section. It seemed as though people
really needed a little more context as to the expected sequence.
- Changed Message Length to 4 bytes. (See
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-01 for some context as to why this
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations Working Group of the
IETF.
Title : BGP Monitoring Protocol
Author(s) : John Scudder
Rex Fernando
14 matches
Mail list logo
