+1 on the new AFI idea. I would support developing the new draft. Out of al the ideas proposed I think the new AFI seems to be the best method of achieving the BGP looking glass capability and propagation of routes.
Thanks Gyan On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 7:25 PM Rayhaan Jaufeerally (IETF) <i...@rayhaan.ch> wrote: > Thanks for the history Robert, I should have read the authors list more > closely on that draft :) > > From that description it seems that it was more circumstances at the time > rather than push back on the implementation itself which is good news for > trying to revive it, > > I'll try and rework the draft to use the operational message and see which > common parts are useful here, then reply to the list / IDR with the updated > draft, > > Cheers, > Rayhaan > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 12:48 AM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > >> Hi Rayhaan, >> >> >>> I guess a good starting point would be to reach out to IDR folks / >>> authors of the operational message draft and get their input as to why it >>> didn't progress further since that would be useful to guide any revival >>> attempts. >>> >> >> Good idea. As I am co-author of this draft taking the liberty to do it >> right here :) >> >> A bit of history - in min 2010 I wrote >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-bgp-diagnostic-message-00. >> >> Then we spoke about it, trimmed a bit and formed what we considered most >> important operationally into >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-operational-message-00 >> >> The draft was having good support during the IDR WG adoption and hence it >> became WG doc. >> >> Since then most of the authors left the vendor world and our influence to >> implement it in significant commercial BGP code bases was no longer >> sufficient. Yet vendors told we will implement it if customers ask for it. >> So we are 9+ years and still I am not sure if anyone cares much about >> switching phone and email channels between NOCs into more programmatic way. >> >> Yet we do see from time to time a pop request to some form to tell peer >> ascii strings like sms by BGP, pass some well known address, etc ... >> >> I think this is the fundamental challenge in how we operate peering >> relations. I have seen a lot of good automation happening in the IX world, >> but when trying to establish BGP sessions today it seems still emails, xls, >> word documents style ... >> >> While it does not need to be all TLVs as listed in the >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-operational-message-00 draft >> but I think operational message is indeed needed. >> >> Cheers, >> R. >> >> _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
