Hi Shunwan, Thank you for your support and answers inline as “Paolo":
On 11 Jul 2019, at 14:25, Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshun...@huawei.com<mailto:zhuangshun...@huawei.com>> wrote: 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 [Paolo] You are right, i am fixing this for the next version of the document. I hope there will be a way to do this smoothly without having to re-submit the -00. Since submission is now locked, this is something i will take care of after Montreal. #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）. [Paolo] Ack, good point. We may think to relax the wording but thing is i simply borrowed that terminology from RFC7854 section 4.9 (Peer Down Notification, see first paragraph). #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. [Paolo] You got the scope of VRF/Table Name TLV specified in draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib correct. And ”to introduce a generic mechanism for Peer Down message to use TLVs” is precisely one of the purposes of this document. Unfortunately the path forward is not without perils since Peer Down currently allows append extra data - and only to some reason codes - not necessarily in TLV format. There are multiple solutions to this aspect (not specified in the current document, which was intentionally left bland on this part for a start), from more extreme (define a new message type) to duplicate existing reason codes mandating extra data to be in TLV format, and i myself would like to receive feedback too (and indeed discuss in Montreal). Paolo
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
