On 03/31/2016 01:34 AM, Zhuangshunwan wrote: > 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. They are also used for ongoing monitoring of ADJ-RIB-In > > state. Route monitoring messages are state-compressed. This is all > > discussed in more detail in Section 5. > > > > Following the common BMP header and per-peer header is a BGP Update > > PDU. > > > > My question: > > How to understand "Following the common BMP header and per-peer header > is a BGP Update PDU." ? > > Does it mean that "only" one BGP Update PDU can be encapsulated after a > per-peer header? >
Yes > When multiple BGP Update PDUs share the same per-peer header, can it > support "1 per-peer header + multiple BGP Update PDUs" ? > No - each UPDATE msg is encapsulated in a separate Route Monitoring msg. The text could probably be adjusted to spell this out better. Is your concern the overhead introduced by replicated common/per-peer headers should processing be common across multiple UPDATE msg (down to the timestamp)? > > > > > Thanks, > > Shunwan > > > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
