Hi Warren,
Thank you so much for the review. We agree with those changes. We have made
the requested changes, but we cannot submit them until after Mar-8th. Until
then, I have attached a text diff output. You can also see the changes at
https://github.com/TimEvens/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-loc-rib. You can compare tag
revisions.
Thanks,
Tim
On 2/22/21, 9:27 AM, "Warren Kumari" <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
Hi authors and WG,
Thank you for this document, I believe that allowing BMP to share Loc-RIB is
clearly a good thing.
I do have a few comments/nits that addressing now should help the IETF
LC and IESG eval go more smoothly.
Please SHOUT loudly once you've had a chance to address these.
AD Review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib
--------------------------------------------
1: "As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated section 9.4 of [RFC4271]"
I'm unable to parse this - changing "As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated"
into "As shown in Figure 2, Locally Originated into Loc-RIB, ..." doesn't fix
it, because the figure doesn't really "show what Sec 9.4 of RFC4271" says.
Perhaps something like: "Figure 2 (Locally Originated into Loc-RIB) illustrates
how redistributed or otherwise originated routes get installed into the Loc-RIB
based on the decision process selection in [RFC4271]"
2: In Section 1.1 the document says things like: "The current method introduces
the need..."
Once the document is published, the phrase "the current method" seems
incorrect, but I don't have a better suggestion...
3: "Locally sourced routes MUST be conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer
type."
Should this be "locally sourced BGP routes"? It would be silly to think that
this might carry e.g OSPF only routes, but you have a MUST, so important to be
explicit.
This also seems to conflict with "The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is
filtered". Perhaps that above is better worded something like:
"If locally sourced routes are communicated using BMP, they MUST be conveyed
using the Loc-RIB instance peer type." ?
4: " The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP protocol Decision
Process section 9.1 of [RFC4271]."
Similar to #1 - perhaps this is just missing a "in section of..."? Still needs
rewording.
5: "These routes include those learned from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In
post-policy, as well as routes learned by other means section 9.4 of [RFC4271]."
Similar -- I suspect that there was an errant search and replace which
clobbered some text?
6: "Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value."
Erm, what's this default ASN value?
7: "5.1. Per-Peer Header"
I think that this section needs a pointer to RFC7854 Sec 4.2.
8: "Capabilities MUST include 4-octet ASN"
s/include 4/include the 4/
9: "For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8<http://10.0.0.0/8> is updated "
Please use RFC5737 examples instead.
Nit:
1: "This is overly complex for such a simple application that only needed to
have access to the Loc-RIB."
s/needed/needs/
2: It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot and resolve issues if operators
had the history of Loc-RIB changes.
s/had/have/
3: "BGP Instance: it refers to an"
s/it//
--
Perhaps they really do strive for incomprehensibility in their specs.
After all, when the liturgy was in Latin, the laity knew their place.
-- Michael Padlipsky
diff --git a/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib.txt
b/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib.txt
index 2a3d66f..2f69495 100644
--- a/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib.txt
+++ b/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib.txt
@@ -6,13 +6,13 @@ Global Routing Operations
T. Evens
Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar
Updates: 7854 (if approved) M. Bhardwaj
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
-Expires: 18 July 2021 P. Lucente
+Expires: 28 August 2021 P. Lucente
NTT Communications
- 14 January 2021
+ 24 February 2021
Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
- draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-09
+ draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10
Abstract
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Status of This Memo
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
- This Internet-Draft will expire on 18 July 2021.
+ This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 August 2021.
Copyright Notice
@@ -53,9 +53,9 @@ Copyright Notice
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 1]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 1]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
@@ -109,9 +109,9 @@ Table of Contents
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 2]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 2]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
1. Introduction
@@ -150,10 +150,10 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
Figure 1: BGP peering Adj-RIBs-In into Loc-RIB
- As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated section 9.4 of [RFC4271]
- follows a similar flow where the redistributed or otherwise
- originated routes get installed into the Loc-RIB based on the
- decision process selection.
+ Figure 2 (Locally Originated into Loc-RIB) illustrates how
+ redistributed or otherwise originated routes get installed into the
+ Loc-RIB based on the decision process selection in RFC 4271
+ [RFC4271].
@@ -165,9 +165,9 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 3]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 3]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
/--------------------------------------------------------\
@@ -206,14 +206,14 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
metrics. While it is possible to obtain the IGP topology
information using BGP-LS, it requires the application to implement
SPF and possibly CSPF based on additional policies. This is
- overly complex for such a simple application that only needed to
+ overly complex for such a simple application that only needs to
have access to the Loc-RIB.
* It is common to see frequent changes over many BGP peers, but
those changes do not always result in the router's Loc-RIB
changing. The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct impact on
the forwarding state. It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot
- and resolve issues if operators had the history of Loc-RIB
+ and resolve issues if operators have the history of Loc-RIB
changes. For example, a performance issue might have been seen
for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post troubleshooting this issue
without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing changes
@@ -221,9 +221,9 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 4]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 4]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
* Operators may wish to validate the impact of policies applied to
@@ -277,9 +277,9 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 5]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 5]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
/------------------------------------------------------\
@@ -323,7 +323,8 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
peering session. The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy
to the BMP receiver.
- The current method introduces the need for additional resources:
+ BMP lacking access to Loc-RIB introduces the need for additional
+ resources:
* Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be
monitored.
@@ -332,10 +333,9 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
-
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 6]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 6]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
* Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates
@@ -344,8 +344,8 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
peers, segment routing egress peer engineering where no peers have
link-state address family enabled.
- Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g.
- correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:
+ Complexities introduced by the lack of access to Loc-RIB in order to
+ derive (e.g. correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:
* Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a
policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more
@@ -389,12 +389,12 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 7]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 7]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
- * BGP Instance: it refers to an instance of an instance of BGP-4
+ * BGP Instance: refers to an instance of an instance of BGP-4
[RFC4271] and considerations in section 8.1 of [RFC7854] do apply
to it.
@@ -437,19 +437,22 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
4.2. Peer Flags
In section 4.2 of [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment
- under the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST
- be conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type.
+ under the L flag description is removed. If locally sourced routes
+ are communicated using BMP, they MUST be conveyed using the Loc-RIB
+ instance peer type.
- The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined
- as follows:
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 8]
+
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 8]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
+ The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined
+ as follows:
+
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F| Reserved |
@@ -465,19 +468,20 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
5. Loc-RIB Monitoring
The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP protocol Decision
- Process section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes include those learned
- from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In post-policy, as well as routes
- learned by other means section 9.4 of [RFC4271]. Examples of these
- include redistribution of routes from other protocols into BGP or
- otherwise locally originated (ie. aggregate routes).
+ Process as described in section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes
+ include those learned from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In post-policy,
+ as well as routes learned by other means as per section 9.4 of
+ [RFC4271]. Examples of these include redistribution of routes from
+ other protocols into BGP or otherwise locally originated (ie.
+ aggregate routes).
As mentioned in Section 4.2 a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent to
a BMP collector by setting the F flag.
5.1. Per-Peer Header
- All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the
- following values:
+ All peer messages that include a per-peer header section 4.2 of
+ [RFC7854] MUST use the following values:
* Peer Type: Set to 3 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer.
@@ -490,20 +494,16 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
The V flag is not applicable with Loc-RIB Instance peer type
considering addresses are zero-filed.
- * Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value.
+ * Peer AS: Set to the primary router BGP ASN.
* Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g. VRF)
specific router-id section 1.1 of [RFC7854].
-
-
-
-
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 9]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 9]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
* Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were installed in
@@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
* Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable.
* Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message.
- Capabilities MUST include 4-octet ASN and all necessary
+ Capabilities MUST include the 4-octet ASN and all necessary
capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring messages.
Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB
monitoring messages. For example, if add-paths is enabled for
@@ -557,9 +557,9 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 10]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 10]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
Multiple TLVs of the same type can be repeated as part of the same
@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the final resultant
updates are sent.
- For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times
+ For example, prefix 192.0.2.0/24 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times
within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages
results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4
changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression
@@ -613,9 +613,9 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 11]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 11]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
5.5. Route Mirroring
@@ -669,9 +669,9 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 12]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 12]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers
@@ -725,9 +725,9 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 13]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 13]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
8.3. Peer UP Information TLV
@@ -781,9 +781,9 @@ Authors' Addresses
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 14]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 14]
-Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB January 2021
+Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB February 2021
Seattle, WA 98121
@@ -837,4 +837,4 @@ Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB
January 2021
-Evens, et al. Expires 18 July 2021 [Page 15]
+Evens, et al. Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 15]
diff --git a/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib.xml
b/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib.xml
index e0ff7da..4009918 100644
--- a/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib.xml
+++ b/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib.xml
@@ -8,12 +8,12 @@
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
-<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"; category="std"
docName="draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-09" ipr="trust200902"
submissionType="IETF" updates="7854" obsoletes="" xml:lang="en"
tocInclude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">
+<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"; category="std"
docName="draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10" ipr="trust200902"
submissionType="IETF" updates="7854" obsoletes="" xml:lang="en"
tocInclude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">
<!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.3.0 -->
<front>
<title abbrev="BMP Loc-RIB">
Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)</title>
- <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-09"/>
+ <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft"
value="draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10"/>
<author fullname="Tim Evens" initials="T" surname="Evens">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
@@ -127,10 +127,10 @@
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t>
- As shown in <xref target="FigLocallyOriginated" format="default"/>,
Locally originated
- <xref target="RFC4271" format="default">section 9.4 of</xref>
follows a similar flow where the
- redistributed or otherwise originated routes get installed into
the Loc-RIB
- based on the decision process selection.
+ <xref target="FigLocallyOriginated" format="default"/> (Locally
Originated into Loc-RIB)
+ illustrates how redistributed or otherwise originated routes get
installed into the
+ Loc-RIB based on the decision process selection in
+ <xref target="RFC4271" format="default">RFC 4271</xref>.
</t>
<figure anchor="FigLocallyOriginated">
<name>Locally Originated into Loc-RIB</name>
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@
information using BGP-LS, it requires the application
to
implement SPF and possibly CSPF based on additional
policies.
This is overly complex for such a simple application
that only
- needed to have access to the Loc-RIB.
+ needs to have access to the Loc-RIB.
</t>
</li>
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@
those changes do not always result in the router's
Loc-RIB
changing. The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct
impact
on the forwarding state. It can greatly reduce time to
- troubleshoot and resolve issues if operators had the
history of
+ troubleshoot and resolve issues if operators have the
history of
Loc-RIB changes. For example, a performance issue
might have
been seen for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post
troubleshooting this issue without Loc-RIB history
hides any
@@ -269,8 +269,8 @@
router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy to the BMP
receiver.
</t>
<t>
- The current method introduces the need for additional
resources:
-
+ BMP lacking access to Loc-RIB introduces the need for
additional
+ resources:
</t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<li>
@@ -286,8 +286,8 @@
</li>
</ul>
<t>
- Complexities introduced with current method in order to
derive
- (e.g. correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:
+ Complexities introduced by the lack of access to Loc-RIB in
+ order to derive (e.g. correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:
</t>
<ul spacing="normal">
@@ -339,7 +339,7 @@
<name>Definitions</name>
<ul spacing="normal">
<li>
- BGP Instance: it refers to an instance of an instance
of BGP-4 <xref target="RFC4271" format="default"/>
+ BGP Instance: refers to an instance of an instance of
BGP-4 <xref target="RFC4271" format="default"/>
and considerations in <xref target="RFC7854"
format="default">section 8.1 of</xref> do apply to it.
</li>
<li>
@@ -395,8 +395,8 @@
<name>Peer Flags</name>
<t>
In <xref target="RFC7854" format="default">section 4.2 of</xref>,
the "locally sourced routes"
- comment under the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced
routes MUST
- be conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type.
+ comment under the L flag description is removed. If locally
sourced routes are communicated
+ using BMP, they MUST be conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer
type.
</t>
<t>
The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are
defined
@@ -428,13 +428,12 @@
<section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Loc-RIB Monitoring</name>
<t>
- The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP protocol
Decision Process
- <xref target="RFC4271" format="default">section 9.1 of</xref>.
These routes include those learned
- from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In post-policy, as well as
routes learned by
- other means <xref target="RFC4271" format="default">section 9.4
of</xref>. Examples of these
- include redistribution of routes from other protocols into BGP
or otherwise
- locally originated (ie. aggregate routes).
-
+ The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP protocol
Decision Process as
+ described in <xref target="RFC4271" format="default">section
9.1 of</xref>. These
+ routes include those learned from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In
post-policy, as
+ well as routes learned by other means as per <xref
target="RFC4271" format="default">section 9.4 of</xref>.
+ Examples of these include redistribution of routes from other
protocols into BGP
+ or otherwise locally originated (ie. aggregate routes).
</t>
<t>
As mentioned in <xref target="PeerFlags" format="default"/> a
subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be
@@ -443,8 +442,8 @@
<section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Per-Peer Header</name>
<t>
- All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the
- following values:
+ All peer messages that include a per-peer header <xref
target="RFC7854" format="default">section 4.2 of</xref>
+ MUST use the following values:
</t>
<ul spacing="normal">
@@ -457,22 +456,22 @@
unique locally defined value of the particular instance the
Loc-RIB belongs to.
</li>
<li>
- Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is
not applicable.
- The V flag is not applicable with Loc-RIB Instance
peer type
- considering addresses are zero-filed.
+ Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is not
applicable.
+ The V flag is not applicable with Loc-RIB Instance peer type
+ considering addresses are zero-filed.
</li>
<li>
- Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value.
+ Peer AS: Set to the primary router BGP ASN.
</li>
<li>
Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g. VRF)
specific router-id <xref target="RFC7854"
format="default">section 1.1 of</xref>.
</li>
<li>
- Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes
were installed in
- The Loc-RIB, expressed in seconds and microseconds
since midnight
- (zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the
time is unavailable.
- Precision of the timestamp is
implementation-dependent.
+ Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were installed
in
+ The Loc-RIB, expressed in seconds and microseconds since
midnight
+ (zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the time is
unavailable.
+ Precision of the timestamp is implementation-dependent.
</li>
</ul>
</section>
@@ -495,7 +494,7 @@
</li>
<li>
Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message.
- Capabilities MUST include 4-octet ASN and all necessary
+ Capabilities MUST include the 4-octet ASN and all necessary
capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring
messages.
Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB
monitoring messages. For example, if add-paths is enabled for
@@ -587,7 +586,7 @@
final resultant updates are sent.
</t>
<t>
- For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times
+ For example, prefix 192.0.2.0/24 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times
within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages
results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4
changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
