Hi Shunwan, Inline:
On 12 Jul 2019, at 03:32, Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshun...@huawei.com<mailto:zhuangshun...@huawei.com>> wrote: [ .. ] [Shunwan2] I read draft-lucente-bmp-tlv-00 and find that section 4.2 of it says: “ 4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring The Route Monitoring message type is defined in Section 4.6 [RFC7854]. The BGP Update PDU Section 4.3 [RFC4271] MAY be followed by TLV data. This document defines the following new codes to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs: o Type = TBD1: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for 4-octet AS number capability RFC 6793 [RFC6793], value MUST be boolean. o Type = TBD2: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with ADD-PATH capability RFC 7911 [RFC7911], value MUST be boolean. o Type = TBD3: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with Multiple Labels capability RFC 8277 [RFC8277], value MUST be boolean. ” If I understand correctly, when we need to convey multiple paths from BMP Client to BMP Server, the BGP Update PDU should support BGP Add-Path [RFC7911] . You are entirely right. In draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv there is no mention of the add-path tlv, as defined in draft-lucente-(grow)-bmp-tlv, in case the BGP UPDATE PDU features add-path in order to carry multiple paths from a BMP client to a BMP server. A clear case in which the two works are not in complete sync; i will take care of update draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv mentioning this. Paolo
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
