Hi Haibo, Quite the contrary. draft-tppy-bmp-seamless-session is not about the separation of the transport session from the BMP session. It is about to delay the termination of the BMP session when transport session is closed and introducing a mechanism to re-establish the BMP session.
The authors chose a careful way not to re-invent the wheel. Use existing
protocols, change as less as possible on the BMP application and preserve the
original goal of BMP to be unidirectional. We believe by keeping the session
handling on TCP transport, this goal can be best achieved. We are looking
forward from the working group to receive feedback if they feel the same way or
if the goal should be addressed rather on the application layer.
Best wishes
Thomas
From: Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.w...@huawei.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 12:48 PM
To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-TCZ-ZH1 <thomas.g...@swisscom.com>; rob...@raszuk.net;
j...@dataplane.org
Cc: grow@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [GROW] is TCP the right layer for BMP session resumption?
Hi Tomas,
I think the main problem is how to separate the BMP session with the
transport session. Even we choose a stateless transport, we also need to use
some mechanism to ensure the message is succeed send to the sever, e.g., use
sequence number in BMP RM message.
Regards,
Haibo
From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:21 PM
To: rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>;
j...@dataplane.org<mailto:j...@dataplane.org>
Cc: grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [GROW] is TCP the right layer for BMP session resumption?
Hi John and Robert,
Speaking as a network operator. I absolutely agree on your thoughts that a
stateless transport would be preferred over a stateful.
Best wishes
Thomas
From: GROW <grow-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of
Robert Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 10:38 PM
To: John Kristoff <j...@dataplane.org<mailto:j...@dataplane.org>>
Cc: grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org> grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>
<grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [GROW] is TCP the right layer for BMP session resumption?
I second John's comment with a bit more optimism.
As gRPC over QUIC is becoming a reality and de-facto messaging standard there
is going to be hardly any choice for any router's vendor to resist to implement
it.
Best,
R.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:57 PM John Kristoff
<j...@dataplane.org<mailto:j...@dataplane.org>> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 20:44:18 +0000
"Jakob Heitz \(jheitz\)"
<jheitz=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
> I've seen this session resumption technique in the '90s.
> BMP is a one-way protocol. The BMP server sends nothing.
I kind of wish my BMP router monitor was able to transport data over UDP
to the listening station like syslog and flow data. I would have
especially liked this after that time a blocked TCP port and the
inability to opena TCP connection once caused my BMP monitor router
doing the active open to crash (known and now fixed bug).
> Thus adding this is a significant rework of BMP.
I assume my desire for UDP above will never happen as a result. Oh
well.
John
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org<mailto:GROW@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgrow&data=04%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cb5ed5195cc96456c2e8108d8e3ba6b44%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637509737084881227%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EQ4CF1HiksLTyOyYIa50VDfp1nbsrHPFowYFm1Uf5oQ%3D&reserved=0>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
