Hi Shane,
Ok so let me ask you and others about scaling principle of this
approach. I think this is brilliant idea for ad-hoc session monitoring.
I would fully support it.
Now looking at some comments made during GROW meeting .. some folks
already go over the board and intend to use it for full scale session
monitoring with possible feedback.
Imagine you have few hundreds of ABRS each few hundreds of EBGP sesions.
Are you going to bridge all of them to a single management station ???
What problem are we solving ? Isn't this like Chandra Appana asked
during the meeting some issues about implementation defficiencies to be
addressed via a huge overlay ? Should we not fix this or maybe even
perhaps improve BGP itself if something fundamental elements are missing ?
Next thing ... who is going to support full BGP code on the managemnt
station .. zebra ? I strongly doubt it. And clearly it is needed to
parse the latest BGP capabilites, new AFI/SAFIs or even new attributes.
So before we all jump at support for it - I would recommend to step back
and see what exact technical problem are we solving here ?
Perhaps this is indeed the best solution ... But I would like to see
this a bit deeper analyzed ...
Cheers,
R.
I support this draft becoming a WG draft.
It should be noted that this protocol would be useful not only to
researchers, but also potentially to [some] operators that are looking
for ways to monitor paths, for various troubleshooting reasons, in a
[relatively] lightweight fashion.
Also, I'm curious as to why TCP-MD5 isn't mentioned for use as an
authenticated transport of BMP in the Security Considerations section,
(since TCP-MD5 is already widely implemented and deployed in routers)?
For some environments, e.g.: Intra-AS, TCP-MD5 is sufficient, since its
the de facto transport anyway. OTOH, I'm not opposed if folks think
IPSec is a better answer because it can provide authentication,
encryption or both simultaneously, (presumably, because BMP is more
likely to be run over untrusted, e.g.: Inter-AS, paths).
-shane
David Meyer wrote:
Folks,
At the GROW meeting this week we took away an action item
to ask the list to please read draft-scudder-bmp-00.txt
and let us know whether you feel this draft should be
adopted. Please let us know your opinion on this.
Thanks,
Geoff & Dave
_________________________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
_________________________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
