On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 8:51 AM Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 07:21:13PM +0000, Job Snijders wrote:
> > Milestones
> > ==========
> >
> > Jan 2020 - "Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)" to IESG
> > Feb 2020 - "BMP Peer Up Message Namespace" to IESG
> > Apr 2020 - "Revision to Registration Procedures for Multiple BMP
> > Registries" to IESG.
> > Jul 2020 - “Document negative consequences of de-aggregating received
> > routes for traffic engineering purposes” - to IESG
> > Nov 2020 - "TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages" to
> > IESG.
> > Jan 2021 - “A BCP on using IRR and RPKI data to improve filtering of BGP
> > peering sessions” to IESG or via “Evolving Documents”
>
> Perhaps as a milestone we can also add an effort to create a mechanism
> to allow mapping integer values in BGP {Classic, Extended, Large, Wide}
> Communities to semantics by devising a system to express equivalence
> relations for use in Internet inter-domain routing.
>
> The above is a fancy way of saying that documentation like
> https://www.us.ntt.net/support/policy/routing.cfm is not anywhere close
> to being programmatically interpretable, and perhaps we can do better.
>
> In a way RPSL was an attempt to address the problem space, but now in
> 2019/2020 the solution space maybe has expanded, and we now have a
> better understanding of what worked well in RPSL and what didn't.
This sounds, to me, like:
"can I have a schema for how to publish / register communities that
all networks could agree to use, which permits machine parsing
capabilities"
I'd say: "Sure, make a protobuf definition, provide a common toolset
to parse to/from this, evangelize that to the networks you care to
interconnect with"
seems great to me.
> I'd like to add: September 2020 - "Devise a BGP Community Description System"
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
