Thx Jeff ! Also I welcome more reviews and suggestions for additions or deletions of parts of it. For now I tried to keep it very simple for routers - essentially setup new p2p TCP or QUIC sessions and send over exactly what you put in BGP today. In the same time I see use cases beyond that so added few optional more DATA Types.
With basic DATA Types 1 or 2 there is zero changes needed on the receivers - some folks told me this is huge advantage. Then two optional messages REQUEST and FILTER provide ability for trimming excessive data either on the Producer or Producer's Proxy. Many thx, Robert On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 9:39 PM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Speaking as RTGWG chair: > > Robert - I don’t think we’d have enough time to accommodate a good > discussion during IETF114 (we got only 1 slot), however would be happy to > provide a platform for an interim. > The topic is important and personally (being a very large BGP-LS user) I’d > like to see it progressing. > > Cheers, > Jeff > > On Jul 8, 2022, at 14:44, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > > Hi Acee, > > Yes, by all means input from the operator's community is needed. It can be > collected through LSR WG, IDR WG or GROW WG. RTGWG could also contribute. > We have already seen input from some operators and their opinion on adding > and distributing more and more link state protocol and topology data in > BGP. More such input is very welcome. > > And to your point about RFC9086 - I see nothing wrong in keeping BGP > information in BGP. So IGP Monitoring Protocol does not target to shut down > BGP-LS. It only aims to remove 100% of non BGP sourced information from it. > > Controllers which today listen to BGP-LS need a number of information > sources and that spread will only keep increasing as more inputs are > becoming necessary for its computations. > > Regards, > Robert. > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:32 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> >> >> >> *From: *Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> >> *Date: *Friday, July 8, 2022 at 4:36 PM >> *To: *Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com> >> *Cc: *lsr <l...@ietf.org>, IDR List <i...@ietf.org>, Susan Hares < >> sha...@ndzh.com> >> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol >> >> >> >> Hi Acee, >> >> >> >> Thank you. I was not planning to present it in the upcoming IETF. >> >> >> >> > Let’s see how many stakeholders actually want to this protocol - then >> we can talk about a WG home. >> >> >> >> An alternative approach could be to see how many stakeholders do not want >> to further (for no good reason) to trash BGP. That to me would be in this >> specific case a much better gauge. >> >> >> >> In that case, it seems to me that this discussion should be relegated to >> IDR. Note that there is already non-IGP information transported in BGP-LS, >> e.g., Egress Peer Engineering (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9086/). >> I implemented this on our data center routers (NXOS) years and it is solely >> BGP specific. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acee >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 9:54 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Speaking as WG chair: >> >> >> >> *From: *Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk < >> rob...@raszuk.net> >> *Date: *Friday, July 8, 2022 at 3:21 PM >> *To: *lsr <l...@ietf.org> >> *Cc: *IDR List <i...@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> >> *Subject: *[Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol >> >> >> >> Dear LSR WG, >> >> >> >> Based on ongoing discussion in respect to the future of BGP-LS I >> committed myself to put together an alternate proposal. >> >> >> >> The main goal is not to just publish a -00 version of the draft using >> different encapsulation. The goal is to make a useful tool which can help >> to export link state information from network elements as well as assist in >> network observability. >> >> >> >> The IGP Monitoring Protocol (IMP) draft has been posted and should be >> available at: >> >> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raszuk-lsr-imp/ >> >> >> >> One of the key points I wanted to accomplish was full backwards >> compatibility with TLVs defined for BGP-LS. In parallel other formats >> (optional) are also supported. >> >> >> >> The PUB-SUB nature or FILTERING capabilities are in the spec however as >> noted in the deployment section there is no expectation that this should be >> supported directly on routers. Concept of Producer's Proxies has been >> introduced to support this added functionality as well as provide fan-out >> (analogy to BGP route reflectors). >> >> >> >> I encourage everyone interested to take a look and provide comments. At >> this point this document is nothing more than my individual submission. >> Offline I have had few conversations with both operators and vendors >> expressing some level of interest in this work. How we proceed further (if >> at all :) depends on WG feedback. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Robert. >> >> >> >> PS, I do believe this work belongs in LSR WG pretty squerly. >> >> >> >> Let’s see how many stakeholders actually want to this protocol - then we >> can talk about a WG home. By stakeholders, I mean operators and vendors >> who are committed to implementing and deploying it - not simply those who >> you are able to enlist as co-authors. Note that our IETF 114 LSR agenda is >> full (with multiple agenda items not making the cut). >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acee >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > i...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
