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
