Hi all, I have read this document and think it is a good proposal for BMP.
Few comments: #1 TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages draft-lucente-bmp-tlv-00 [Shunwan] draft-lucente-bmp-tlv-00 should be draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-00 #2 Abstract Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) do provision for optional trailing data; however Route Monitoring message (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing Information Base) and Peer Down message (to indicate that a peering session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV … [Shunwan] “Peer Down message (to indicate that a peering session was terminated)” is not so precise, Peer Down message with Reason 5 can be used to indicate that the BGP session not been monitoring again but it’s not terminated yet(still alive). #3 4.3. TLV data in Peer Down The Peer Down Notification message type is defined in Section 4.9 [RFC7854]. TLV data MAY now follow any Reason code. [Shunwan] Section 5.3. of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib has already introduced a new reason code to convey VRF/Table Name TLV, but it’s not intended to be used for the other scenarios if I understand correctly. I think it is important to introduce a generic mechanism for Peer Down message to use TLVs in this document. Thanks, Shunwan From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paolo Lucente Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 7:35 PM To: grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org <grow@ietf.org> Subject: [GROW] TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages Dearests, We have submitted https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-lucente-bmp-tlv-00.txt . We would like to get opportunity to present it in Montreal and would much welcome feedback on list meanwhile. Abstract below for your convenience: === Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) do provision for optional trailing data; however Route Monitoring message (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing Information Base) and Peer Down message (to indicate that a peering session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use- cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station. While this document does not want to cover any specific utilization scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV data in all message types. === Paolo
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow