On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:38 PM, john heasley <h...@shrubbery.net> wrote: > Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 06:27:54PM -0800, John Scudder: >> On Dec 16, 2010, at 8:08 PM, Stephen Stuart wrote: >> >> I think it defeats a lot of use cases. Perhaps this subtle difference >> >> should >> >> be discussed more before we proceed any further with this document. >> > >> > This was discussed before, if I recall correctly. >> >> That's correct. In fact because of the divergence between -00 and -01, I >> took pains to make this clear when presenting -01, including at NANOG and >> GROW and probably other places. Those interested in the history should be >> able to find the slides easily enough. > > why does this matter? sure, adj-rib-in is MUST, but can that not be > configurable which is (are) exported?
I'm not sure what you're advocating to be configurable. Loc_RIB isn't interesting, you can get that by BGP-peering with the router if you're content to have the data obscured by best path selection. I'm not interested in turning BMP into a protocol for debugging malformed BGP updates, syslog already does that adequately. BMP is meant to do one job: allow a real computer to reproduce the Adj_RIB_In of a router, in a way that protects the router against conditions such as a bad receiver implementation or congestion loss between the speaker and the receiver. Stephen _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
