On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 02:48:36PM +0100, Luuk Hendriks wrote: > That makes sense, but I am a bit on the fence about this TLV being > optional and the fallback scenario. Is there enough incentive to > implement this TLV on the router side, or will this be a nice idea on > paper while in reality BMP station software will have to use the > fallback 99.9% of the time so there is none of the envisioned benefit and > perhaps even an increased computational cost (albeit small)? > > Moreover, all of this applies to the Multiple Labels capability (TBD5) > as well. When these both are optional, the BMP station has to check for > their presence individually, and do the fallback trick for zero, one, or > both of them.
Moreover, for stuff coming as route-monitoring messages, the receiving BMP speaker already had to get the capabilities as part of the peer-up information and thus already had enough information to do the parsing. The primary reason to do these things in each message is the presumption of a completely stateless consumer. If you're doing a distributed collector, this is a nice to have behavior, but also one that can be generated as metadata as part of such a collector's back-end. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
