Benoit, To add to some of Rob's observations:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 02:46:58PM -0600, Rob Shakir wrote: > However, we need to consider how wide-ranging this discussion might end up > being, and what the implications elsewhere might be. Let’s take a very simple > example of the Per-Peer Header (§4.2) ‘Peer Distinguisher’. > > The structure that the IETF is progressing towards is that we have a > VRF-centric model for protocol configuration. That is to say that we have > protocols that are rooted under a routing table, rather than vice-versa. This > means that to be able to identify a particular peer, we need to distinguish > the routing table to which it belongs (to find the correct routing table), > and subsequently the address of the peer. The latter is fine, but the former > is more problematic. For example, we may have a routing instance that does > not have an RD specified (this is the case where we have VRFs that are not > L3VPN VRFs). [0] There is additional some matters of perspective. BMP permits the monitoring of BGP, but there's no specific binding guaranteed in the BMP document to what the BGP instances are. This is intended to be done via configuration. As an example, the monitored instance may belong to the master BGP instance in which case VPN routes may be visible and will have Route Distinguisher semantics. However, it is just as possible to have BMP be configured within a VRF instance and monitor things from the perspective of the PE-CE peering session, if BGP is used as the PE-CE protocol. It is also possible to have multiple disjoint BGP sessions on a given device; e.g. virtual routers. > This would mean that we can’t key the lists in the same way - so is the ask > simply that we are able to determine - based on the set of input data that is > received from BMP - the object within the YANG model hierarchy that is being > referenced? Or is it more wide than that, which says that BMP and YANG > objects should be keyed the same? I think it's broader than that. The perspective of BGP's RIBs models doesn't fully align with the netmod-rtg-cfg model at this point. The operational model for monitoring BGP RIB data in the IDR/openconfig yang models isn't there yet, although Rob notes that there is work in progress within openconfig on this. My suspicion is that it may be simplest to provide a yang model toward the management of the BMP instance. From there, the relationship to the underlying BGP would be clearer. I don't believe that this requires modification of the BMP protocol. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
