Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Tianran Zhou]

Hi Jeff,

Our work is not to propose a new protocol.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp-01
Our idea is to use BMP for IGP monitoring. We just choose BMP as the vehicle.

Best,
Tianran

From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jh...@pfrc.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:10 AM
To: Tianran Zhou 
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Yingzhen Qu ; 
idr ; grow ; lsr 
Subject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

Tianran,

Please note that nothing prohibits BGP-LS from being distributed over BMP today 
aside from implementation support.  It's just another AFI/SAFI.

-- Jeff



On Jul 11, 2022, at 10:02 AM, Tianran Zhou 
mailto:zhoutianran=40huawei@dmarc.ietf.org>>
 wrote:

Hi Robert,

I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?


Best,
Tianran


Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Yingzhen Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
抄送： 
idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 18:01:47

Hi Yingzhen,

Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF elements.

And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I wrote 
BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to protocols 
as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on UPA/PUA/PULSE 
could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.

But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.

Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail and 
hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much better 
for specific tasks :)

Cheers,
R.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu 
mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from OSPF. 
BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking IGPs to 
carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol convergence, 
and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information.

BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can retrieve the 
entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some data instances.

Thanks,
Yingzhen


On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk 
mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:

Hi Acee,

My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the draft.

So I do not think I misinterpreted it.

Thank you,
R.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Date: Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>>, Susan 
Hares mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>>, IDR List 
mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, "grow@ietf.org 
grow@ietf.org" mailto:grow@ietf.org>>, lsr 
mailto:l...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Idr] [GROW] IGP Monitoring Protocol

Hi Yingzhen & OSPF-GT authors,

UP front I must state that anything is better to export IGP information from 
routers to interested nodes than using BGP for it.

But to propose using OSPF to transport ISIS seems pretty brave :) I must admit 
it !

With that I have few questions to the proposal - assuming the use case is to 
distribute links state info in a point to point fashion:

A.What is the advantage - if any - to use a new OSPF instance/process to 
send link state data over a unicast session to a controller ?

It doesn’t have to be unicast, the remote neighbor construct just extends the 
possibilities in OSPF-GT. With an OSPF LSDB, the obvious advantage is all the 
protocol machinery is in place.  Note that LSDB streaming is just but one use 
case and of OSPF-GT. The detals of this application would be specified in a 
separate draft.


B. The draft is pretty silent on the nature of such a p2p session. Please 
be explicit if this is TCP, QUIC or what ?

It is OSPF, OSPF has its own protocol identifier (89). This draft just extends 
OSPF. I think you’ve misinterpreted the draft. Hence, your other questions 
aren’t really applicable or would be answered in a draft of the OSPF/IS-IS LSDB 
usage of OSPF-GT.

Thanks,
Acee



C) The draft is pretty silent on types of authentication for such sessions. 
Security considerations are pretty weak in that respect as well.

   The security considerations for OSPF-GT will be similar to those for
   OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340].  However, since OSPF-GT is not
   used to update OSPF routing, the consequences of attacks will be
   dependent on advertised non-routing information.

I would actually argue that security considerations of p2p remote neighbors are 
actually quite different from security considerations of flooding data.

Along the 

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Robert Raszuk]

Hi,


> Did you read the draft? The main difference is that since OSPF-GT is
>> generalized to be used for non-routing, there is no installation of routes.
>>
>

> Gyan> So The routes would be application use case specific “non
> routing” routes for example for BGP-LS it would be the related LSDB data
> that maybe similar data formatting as in RFC 7752 or new formatting
> described in separate draft.  The other possible use cases it’s “non
> routing” use cases, however in the BGP-LS case it is routing related info,
> not “non routing” related, so would this really be a good solution for
> BGP-LS?  I am thinking maybe not.
>

Guys,

It really does not matter if the northbound distribution of link state data
results in route installation or not. I understand why Acee is bringing
this point, but holistically looking at the entire domain it is irrelevant.

The data received is used for end to end path computation within a given
domain which is equally critical as local route installation.

So no matter what - Gyan you are correct here - it is better to be
accurate.

Thx,
R.
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Gyan Mishra]

Hi Acee

Responses in-line

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 10:44 AM Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> *From: *GROW  on behalf of Gyan Mishra <
> hayabusa...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, July 11, 2022 at 1:41 AM
> *To: *Yingzhen Qu 
> *Cc: *IDR List , "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" <
> grow@ietf.org>, lsr 
> *Subject: *Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>
>
>
> Hi Yingzhen
>
>
>
> So with OSPFV2 using RFC 6549 would support multiple instances or OSPFV3
> already supports instances, how is the GT instance differentiated from any
> other routed instance?
>
>
>
> Did you read the draft? The main difference is that since OSPF-GT is
> generalized to be used for non-routing, there is installation of routes.
>
Gyan> So The routes would be application use case specific “non
routing” routes for example for BGP-LS it would be the related LSDB data
that maybe similar data formatting as in RFC 7752 or new formatting
described in separate draft.  The other possible use cases it’s “non
routing” use cases, however in the BGP-LS case it is routing related info,
not “non routing” related, so would this really be a good solution for
BGP-LS?  I am thinking maybe not.

> OSPF-GT neighbors need not be directly attached (or come with complex OSPF
> Virtual-Link considerations and processing). Depending on the application,
> the extent to which the “condition of reachability” is enforced MUST be
> described in the document describing the application usage of OSPF-GT.
>
>  Gyan> Understood.  So BGP-LS is a possible use case however those details
> would  be in another draft.
>
>
>
> For OSPFV2 it would use Opaque LSA Type 9,10,21 similar to RSVP-TE with an
> opaque option code for GTI.
>
>
>
> For OSPFV3 it would use an OSPFV3 function code for GTI.
>
>
>
> So the NBI BGP-LS peering to the PCE/SDN controller would be replaced with
> a   OSPF GTI neighbor ?
>
>
>
> It could be but that is just one OSPF-GT use case and would need to be
> described in a separate draft.
>

   Gyan> Understood

>
>
> Would you still need a standard routed OSPF neighbor for reachability or I
> guess you could put a static route on the controller across the NBI for
> reachability.
>
>
>
> Yes
>
Gyan> Got it

>
>
> Is that correct?
>
>
>
> Are there any operators implementations of this using OSPF GTI in place of
> BGP-LS?
>
>
>
> You mean OSPF-GT… Since the draft to describe the details of using OSPF-GT
> in place of BGP-LS is yet to be written, it would be very strange indeed if
> it were already deployed. 
>
> Gyan> Understood
>
> RFC 6823 provides the same GTI solution for ISIS.
>
>
>
> Yes and no, OSPF-GT is able to cover a much wider range of applications
> than RFC 683. This is due mostly to OSPF (and especially OSPFv3 with
> extended LSAs) being much more flexible than IS-IS.
>

Gyan> So could OSPF-GT provide the link state for ISIS instead of using
RFC 6823.

>
>
>
>
> Are there any operators implementations of this using OSPF GTI in place of
> BGP-LS?
>
>
>
> No - answered above.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 1:04 AM Yingzhen Qu 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Since we’re discussing possible solutions, I’d like to bring up the draft:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-transport-instance/
>
>
>
> We just submitted a new version. The name of the document is changed to
> “OSPF-GT (Generalized Transport)”, and a use case is added to use OSPF-GT
> as a possible replacement of BGP-LS.
>
>
>
> Note: OSPF-GT is not traditional OSPF, and it’s not used to calculate
> routes. It uses the reachability info calculated by routing protocols,
> OSPF, ISIS or static routing etc.. It provides mechanisms to advertise
> non-routing information, and remote neighbor is supported.
>
>
>
> Reviews and comments are welcome.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yingzhen
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2022, at 5:33 PM, Gyan Mishra  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> During the interim meeting we should keep it open to discuss all possible
> alternatives to BGP-LS.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 4:45 PM Susan Hares  wrote:
>
> Jeff:
>
>
>
> An interim sounds like a good plan.
>
>
>
> [IDR-chair hat]
>
> Alvaro has indicated that since all of the proposal received on the IDR
> list are new protocol proposals,
>
> · Capturing IDR’s input on BGP-LS problems and potential
> solutions is appropriate for IDR as BGP-LS home.
>
> · Refining any potential non-BGP solutions is outside of the
> scope of IDR.
>
>
>
> [IDR-chair hat off]
>
> [rtgwg WG member]
>
> I’d love to attend an interim on this topic.
>
>
>
> Sue Hares
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeff Tantsura 
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 9, 2022 3:40 PM
> *To:* Robert Raszuk 
> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr ;
> i...@ietf.org; Susan Hares ; grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org <
> grow@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Speaking as RTGWG chair:
>
>
>
> Robert - I don’t think we’d have enough 

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Robert Raszuk]

> but kindly don't assert that others can't do it when it's being done.

I did not assert that it can not be done as it is done today.

But not everything which is done today should be kept that way for an
endless future.

Many thx,
R.


On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:18 PM Jeffrey Haas  wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2022, at 12:16 PM, Robert Raszuk  wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 6:09 PM Jeffrey Haas  wrote:
>
>> Tianran,
>>
>> Please note that nothing prohibits BGP-LS from being distributed over BMP
>> today aside from implementation support.  It's just another AFI/SAFI.
>>
>> -- Jeff
>>
>
> Do you mean to build a dummy Adj_RIB_IN or OUT just to feed BMP with the
> BGP-LS formatted data at the IGP node exporting this data ?
>
>
> Do whatever you'd do in your implementation for BMP for the scenario that
> makes sense for you.
>
> If you want to know what an upstream BGP router sent you, look at your
> rib-in.
> If you want to know what local state you've got and are intending to
> disseminate to your downstreams, look at your loc-rib.
> If you want to know what state you've sent to your downstream, look at
> your rib-out.
>
> None of this is unusual.
>
> rib-in and rib-out are clear from a BGP protocol fundamentals perspective.
>
> loc-rib has a touch of ambiguity, along with exactly the same dose of
> ambiguity about "where does locally originated state manifest in
> implementations" that made for a lot of discussion in GROW "recently" as
> the loc-rib and rib-out specs were being finished for RFC purposes.
>
> In our implementation, where loc-rib tracks the "lsdist.0" table, I'd
> probably use that for the majority of use cases that I'd want to get a feed
> for BGP-LS from BMP.  Or, I could just do a BGP-LS peering session and get
> it that way, but the discussion is that BMP works fine.
>
>
> If this would avoid BGP to check the syntax of what is send it would work
> fine .. but it would not. And BGP has no business on doing that check and
> to understand zoo of foreign extensions completely not related to BGP
> itself.
>
>
> Feel free to speak for your own implementation, but kindly don't assert
> that others can't do it when it's being done.
>
> -- Jeff
>
>
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Jeffrey Haas]

Robert,


> On Jul 11, 2022, at 12:16 PM, Robert Raszuk  wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 6:09 PM Jeffrey Haas  > wrote:
> Tianran,
> 
> Please note that nothing prohibits BGP-LS from being distributed over BMP 
> today aside from implementation support.  It's just another AFI/SAFI.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> Do you mean to build a dummy Adj_RIB_IN or OUT just to feed BMP with the 
> BGP-LS formatted data at the IGP node exporting this data ? 

Do whatever you'd do in your implementation for BMP for the scenario that makes 
sense for you.

If you want to know what an upstream BGP router sent you, look at your rib-in.
If you want to know what local state you've got and are intending to 
disseminate to your downstreams, look at your loc-rib.
If you want to know what state you've sent to your downstream, look at your 
rib-out.

None of this is unusual.

rib-in and rib-out are clear from a BGP protocol fundamentals perspective.

loc-rib has a touch of ambiguity, along with exactly the same dose of ambiguity 
about "where does locally originated state manifest in implementations" that 
made for a lot of discussion in GROW "recently" as the loc-rib and rib-out 
specs were being finished for RFC purposes.

In our implementation, where loc-rib tracks the "lsdist.0" table, I'd probably 
use that for the majority of use cases that I'd want to get a feed for BGP-LS 
from BMP.  Or, I could just do a BGP-LS peering session and get it that way, 
but the discussion is that BMP works fine.

> 
> If this would avoid BGP to check the syntax of what is send it would work 
> fine .. but it would not. And BGP has no business on doing that check and to 
> understand zoo of foreign extensions completely not related to BGP itself. 

Feel free to speak for your own implementation, but kindly don't assert that 
others can't do it when it's being done.

-- Jeff 

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Proposing a well-known BGP community for Anycast

[heasley]

Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 09:32:51PM +0200, Robert Raszuk:
> And here comes I think need for authors to clarify something. They said
> that such marking is going to be used along with NO-EXPORT.

no, you might have misread that; with no-export is possible but not necessary.

Eg: several (perhaps all now?) of the root servers lie within anycast
prefixes.  These should not be marked no-export, but *could* be marked
ANYCAST.

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Robert Raszuk]

HI Jeff,

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 6:09 PM Jeffrey Haas  wrote:

> Tianran,
>
> Please note that nothing prohibits BGP-LS from being distributed over BMP
> today aside from implementation support.  It's just another AFI/SAFI.
>
> -- Jeff
>

Do you mean to build a dummy Adj_RIB_IN or OUT just to feed BMP with the
BGP-LS formatted data at the IGP node exporting this data ?

If this would avoid BGP to check the syntax of what is send it would work
fine .. but it would not. And BGP has no business on doing that check and
to understand zoo of foreign extensions completely not related to BGP
itself.

Thx,
R.
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Jeffrey Haas]

Tianran,

Please note that nothing prohibits BGP-LS from being distributed over BMP today 
aside from implementation support.  It's just another AFI/SAFI.

-- Jeff


> On Jul 11, 2022, at 10:02 AM, Tianran Zhou 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
> Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?
> 
> 
> Best,
> Tianran 
> 
> 
> Sent from WeLink
> 发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
> 收件人： Yingzhen Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
> 抄送： idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;grow >;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
> 主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
> 时间： 2022-07-11 18:01:47
> 
> Hi Yingzhen, 
> 
> Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF 
> elements. 
> 
> And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I wrote 
> BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to protocols 
> as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on UPA/PUA/PULSE 
> could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion. 
> 
> But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS. 
> 
> Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail and 
> hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much better 
> for specific tasks :) 
> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu  > wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from OSPF. 
> BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking IGPs to 
> carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol 
> convergence, and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information.
> 
> BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can retrieve the 
> entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some data instances. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
> 
>> On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Acee,
>> 
>> My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the draft. 
>> 
>> So I do not think I misinterpreted it. 
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> R.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) > > wrote:
>> Hi Robert,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
>> Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
>> Date: Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM
>> To: Yingzhen Qu mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
>> Cc: Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>>, 
>> Susan Hares mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>>, IDR List 
>> mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, "grow@ietf.org 
>>  grow@ietf.org " > >, lsr mailto:l...@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Idr] [GROW] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Hi Yingzhen & OSPF-GT authors,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> UP front I must state that anything is better to export IGP information from 
>> routers to interested nodes than using BGP for it.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> But to propose using OSPF to transport ISIS seems pretty brave :) I must 
>> admit it ! 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> With that I have few questions to the proposal - assuming the use case is to 
>> distribute links state info in a point to point fashion: 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> What is the advantage - if any - to use a new OSPF instance/process to send 
>> link state data over a unicast session to a controller ? 
>>  
>> 
>> It doesn’t have to be unicast, the remote neighbor construct just extends 
>> the possibilities in OSPF-GT. With an OSPF LSDB, the obvious advantage is 
>> all the protocol machinery is in place.  Note that LSDB streaming is just 
>> but one use case and of OSPF-GT. The detals of this application would be 
>> specified in a separate draft.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The draft is pretty silent on the nature of such a p2p session. Please be 
>> explicit if this is TCP, QUIC or what ? 
>>  
>> 
>> It is OSPF, OSPF has its own protocol identifier (89). This draft just 
>> extends OSPF. I think you’ve misinterpreted the draft. Hence, your other 
>> questions aren’t really applicable or would be answered in a draft of the 
>> OSPF/IS-IS LSDB usage of OSPF-GT.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> C) The draft is pretty silent on types of authentication for such sessions. 
>> Security considerations are pretty weak in that respect as well. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>The security considerations for OSPF-GT will be similar to those for
>>OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340].  However, since OSPF-GT is not
>>used to update OSPF routing, the consequences of attacks will be
>>dependent on advertised non-routing information.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I would actually argue that security considerations of p2p remote neighbors 
>> are actually quite different from security considerations of flooding data. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Along the same lines security is not about protecting your 

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Jeffrey Haas]

Jeff,


> On Jul 10, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Jeff Tantsura  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Sue!
> 
> We don’t have to always reinvent the wheel (at least not every time )
> I’m aware of at least 1 implementation streaming LSDB for TE consumers (gRPC)
> There are most probably some other vendor specific encodings/methods to steam 
> to do that 

Minimally, the Openconfig group has models for the LSDB and some number of 
vendors either have implementation for providing access to that state via 
netconf, or gNMI.

Example model:
https://github.com/openconfig/public/blob/master/release/models/ospf/openconfig-ospfv2-lsdb.yang

I've largely reached the point where when someone uses the term "subscription" 
in terms of operational state, I'm going to think "you want this in YANG 
modeling via one of the access protocols for that".

For general operational state access, it's not bad... just very slow and eats 
your CPU doing too much printf.  (non-ascii versions of the model output become 
discussion points, but also change your ecosystem discussion).

Part of the discussion not fully had is what the consumers for this state are.  
If you're talking operational tools, getting pushed toward YANG models starts 
making more sense.  However, if you have routing driven purposes, either 
directly at consuming routers or at controllers, you want different answers.

Certainly, as you're aware, Jeff, vendors and operators are happily consuming 
BGP-LS state do to Clever Things.  For those cases, I'm not sure there's going 
to be a driver to get it out of BGP.

> I believe – there has been some work around Kafka.

It works quite nicely on collectors.  Serving your ecosystem by consuming the 
state from the network in efficient formats and then feeding tools from the 
collector in your toolchain of choice tends to be a nice model.

> 
> Would be great to  do some study around existing solutions, see what worked, 
> what didn’t’ (and why)  

Getting various parties to discuss this publicly is the larger challenge.

-- Jeff

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Tianran Zhou]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for sharing your point.
We are actually very open on a new protocol also. We just want to solve real 
problems.
We organized a side meeting in IETF to discuss this. The feedback from that 
meeting is a preference on reusing BMP.  

Best,
Tianran






Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Tianran Zhoumailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>
抄送： Yingzhen 
Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>;idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 23:38:49

Hi,

I think BMP is busy enough that loading more on it will be problematic.

Sourcing from two protocols just to leverage single transport session seems not 
best idea.

IMO opening a new unicast session directly by the producer of subject data is 
best way to share/export it.

Many thx,
R.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 5:34 PM Tianran Zhou 
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

Since our work is just follow the BMP which is in GROW in OPS area, we 
presented this in OPSAWG and GROW.

We want to reuse BMP for IGP with some simple extensions. We do not want to 
create a new protocol only because of the BMP name.

Cheers,
Tianran






Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Tianran Zhoumailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>
抄送： Yingzhen 
Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>;idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 23:05:56

Hello Tianran,

Oh I was not aware of such document. Did you ever share it with LSR WG before ?

Quick browsing reveals that you have taken a bit different approach .. very IGP 
centric borrowing IGP encoding at the message level.

For example peer state notification I purposely decided not to include as this 
is already reflected in the LSDB.

I will take a more detail read of your spec. Then we can talk if there is some 
overlap or both approaches are so different then it makes sense to progress 
both. One size does not fit all :)

Best,
R.




On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:54 PM Tianran Zhou 
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

This is very interesting to me. We had a protocol design for IGP monitoring:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp-01

It would be a good idea if we can find some common ground.

Cheers,
Tianran






Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Tianran Zhoumailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>
抄送： Yingzhen 
Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>;idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 22:05:31

Hi Tianran,

Yes it is,

I dedicated entire paragraph in section 1 of the document to highlight that 
point:


   The primary inspiration for this work has been based on the success
   of BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] which in a number of
   aspects shares the same high level requirements - point to point
   routing information distribution, protocol observability and enhanced
   operations.  It also needs to be highlighted that BMP (while it
   technically could) does not use native BGP sessions to propagate such
   information, but is running a separate transport.  IMP authors have
   chosen to reuse selected BMP building blocks and BMP operational and
   deployment experience.



Many thx,
R.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:02 PM Tianran Zhou 
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?


Best,
Tianran



Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Yingzhen Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
抄送： 
idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 18:01:47

Hi Yingzhen,

Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF elements.

And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I wrote 
BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to protocols 
as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on UPA/PUA/PULSE 
could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.

But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.

Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail and 
hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much better 
for specific tasks :)

Cheers,
R.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu 
mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from OSPF. 
BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking IGPs to 

Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Robert Raszuk]

Hi,

I think BMP is busy enough that loading more on it will be problematic.

Sourcing from two protocols just to leverage single transport session seems
not best idea.

IMO opening a new unicast session directly by the producer of subject data
is best way to share/export it.

Many thx,
R.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 5:34 PM Tianran Zhou  wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
> Since our work is just follow the BMP which is in GROW in OPS area, we 
> presented this in OPSAWG and GROW.
>
>
> We want to reuse BMP for IGP with some simple extensions. We do not want to 
> create a new protocol only because of the BMP name.
>
> Cheers,
> Tianran
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sent from WeLink
> *发件人： *Robert Raszuk
> *收件人： *Tianran Zhou
> *抄送： *Yingzhen Qu;idr;grow<
> grow@ietf.org>;lsr
> *主题： *Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
> *时间： *2022-07-11 23:05:56
>
> Hello Tianran,
>
> Oh I was not aware of such document. Did you ever share it with LSR WG
> before ?
>
> Quick browsing reveals that you have taken a bit different approach ..
> very IGP centric borrowing IGP encoding at the message level.
>
> For example peer state notification I purposely decided not to include as
> this is already reflected in the LSDB.
>
> I will take a more detail read of your spec. Then we can talk if there is
> some overlap or both approaches are so different then it makes sense to
> progress both. One size does not fit all :)
>
> Best,
> R.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:54 PM Tianran Zhou 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>>
>> This is very interesting to me. We had a protocol design for IGP monitoring:
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp-01
>>
>> It would be a good idea if we can find some common ground.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tianran
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sent from WeLink
>> *发件人： *Robert Raszuk
>> *收件人： *Tianran Zhou
>> *抄送： *Yingzhen Qu;idr;grow<
>> grow@ietf.org>;lsr
>> *主题： *Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>> *时间： *2022-07-11 22:05:31
>>
>> Hi Tianran,
>>
>> Yes it is,
>>
>> I dedicated entire paragraph in section 1 of the document to highlight
>> that point:
>>
>>The primary inspiration for this work has been based on the success
>>of BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] which in a number of
>>aspects shares the same high level requirements - point to point
>>routing information distribution, protocol observability and enhanced
>>operations.  It also needs to be highlighted that BMP (while it
>>technically could) does not use native BGP sessions to propagate such
>>information, but is running a separate transport.  IMP authors have
>>chosen to reuse selected BMP building blocks and BMP operational and
>>deployment experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many thx,
>> R.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:02 PM Tianran Zhou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
>>> Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Tianran
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Sent from WeLink
>>> *发件人： *Robert Raszuk
>>> *收件人： *Yingzhen Qu
>>> *抄送： *idr;grow;lsr
>>> *主题： *Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>>> *时间： *2022-07-11 18:01:47
>>>
>>> Hi Yingzhen,
>>>
>>> Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF
>>> elements.
>>>
>>> And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I
>>> wrote BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to
>>> protocols as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on
>>> UPA/PUA/PULSE could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.
>>>
>>> But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.
>>>
>>> Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use
>>> nail and hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work
>>> much better for specific tasks :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> R.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Robert,

 Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from
 OSPF. BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking
 IGPs to carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol
 convergence, and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information.

 BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can
 retrieve the entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some
 data instances.

 Thanks,
 Yingzhen

 On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk  wrote:

 Hi Acee,

 My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the
 draft.

 So I do not think I misinterpreted it.

 Thank you,
 R.



 On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
 wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsr  on 

Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Tianran Zhou]

Hi Robert,

Since our work is just follow the BMP which is in GROW in OPS area, we 
presented this in OPSAWG and GROW.

We want to reuse BMP for IGP with some simple extensions. We do not want to 
create a new protocol only because of the BMP name.

Cheers,
Tianran






Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Tianran Zhoumailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>
抄送： Yingzhen 
Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>;idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 23:05:56

Hello Tianran,

Oh I was not aware of such document. Did you ever share it with LSR WG before ?

Quick browsing reveals that you have taken a bit different approach .. very IGP 
centric borrowing IGP encoding at the message level.

For example peer state notification I purposely decided not to include as this 
is already reflected in the LSDB.

I will take a more detail read of your spec. Then we can talk if there is some 
overlap or both approaches are so different then it makes sense to progress 
both. One size does not fit all :)

Best,
R.




On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:54 PM Tianran Zhou 
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

This is very interesting to me. We had a protocol design for IGP monitoring:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp-01

It would be a good idea if we can find some common ground.

Cheers,
Tianran






Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Tianran Zhoumailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>
抄送： Yingzhen 
Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>;idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 22:05:31

Hi Tianran,

Yes it is,

I dedicated entire paragraph in section 1 of the document to highlight that 
point:


   The primary inspiration for this work has been based on the success
   of BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] which in a number of
   aspects shares the same high level requirements - point to point
   routing information distribution, protocol observability and enhanced
   operations.  It also needs to be highlighted that BMP (while it
   technically could) does not use native BGP sessions to propagate such
   information, but is running a separate transport.  IMP authors have
   chosen to reuse selected BMP building blocks and BMP operational and
   deployment experience.



Many thx,
R.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:02 PM Tianran Zhou 
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?


Best,
Tianran



Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Yingzhen Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
抄送： 
idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 18:01:47

Hi Yingzhen,

Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF elements.

And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I wrote 
BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to protocols 
as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on UPA/PUA/PULSE 
could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.

But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.

Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail and 
hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much better 
for specific tasks :)

Cheers,
R.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu 
mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from OSPF. 
BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking IGPs to 
carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol convergence, 
and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information.

BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can retrieve the 
entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some data instances.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk 
mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:

Hi Acee,

My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the draft.

So I do not think I misinterpreted it.

Thank you,
R.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Date: Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>>, Susan 
Hares mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>>, IDR List 
mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, "grow@ietf.org 

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Robert Raszuk]

Tony,


> a) configuration is already standardized via NETCONF WG/channels/methods.
> pulling it via this seems redundant.
>

It is optional.


> b) YANG is already pulled via other channels so I see little value of
> pulling it here. same as a) basically
>

Please enumerate what channels ? And in the same time please indicate why
those channels are not good enough such that we need to keep stuffing BGP
protocol with the IGP, SR, Detnet etc .. data.



> c) adding all those "sync" via SNP is basically building a flooding peer
> again as far I can deduct having flown quickly over the draft. Doing that
> over QUIC/TCP is a bad idea due to head-on blocking problems well known
> with flooding. if the consumer cannot keep up with the real stream the
> sender can only start to throw away stuff or reset the session practically
> speaking
>

IMP is NOT doing flooding. If you think that control plane with 100s of CPU
cores will be slower in accepting your RE generated streams please kindly
reconsider.

But if the rate of data change would be a problem we would already choke
with TCP based BGP-LS. So not sure what problem are you seeing. Are you
referring to one interface flood mirroring ? For debugging it either be
nicely packed and sent or screen scraped. Which one do you prefer ?

d) beats me why you would want this to carry BGP-LS again if y6ou can
> simply run another session/BGP instance on any good implementation today.
>

beats me why would ever want to keep polluting BGP protocol like this. Are
you saying that IGP can not open a TCP socket or setup a QUIC session ? Is
it too much to ask ? Too complex ?


> Given all the big wishlist included in the draft protocol needs probably
> something to negotiate WHAT of all the whole panopticum the producer can
> support unless it's somehow in the PUB/SUB (but then again, this probably
> needs mode negotiation as well given the plethora of possibilities there).
>

Please kindly observe what is mandatory and what is optional. Also kindly
notice the split between Producer and Producer's Proxy.

Thx,
R.






>
> -- tony
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:54 PM Tianran Zhou  40huawei@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>>
>> This is very interesting to me. We had a protocol design for IGP monitoring:
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp-01
>>
>> It would be a good idea if we can find some common ground.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tianran
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sent from WeLink
>> *发件人： *Robert Raszuk
>> *收件人： *Tianran Zhou
>> *抄送： *Yingzhen Qu;idr;grow<
>> grow@ietf.org>;lsr
>> *主题： *Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>> *时间： *2022-07-11 22:05:31
>>
>> Hi Tianran,
>>
>> Yes it is,
>>
>> I dedicated entire paragraph in section 1 of the document to highlight
>> that point:
>>
>>The primary inspiration for this work has been based on the success
>>of BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] which in a number of
>>aspects shares the same high level requirements - point to point
>>routing information distribution, protocol observability and enhanced
>>operations.  It also needs to be highlighted that BMP (while it
>>technically could) does not use native BGP sessions to propagate such
>>information, but is running a separate transport.  IMP authors have
>>chosen to reuse selected BMP building blocks and BMP operational and
>>deployment experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many thx,
>> R.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:02 PM Tianran Zhou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
>>> Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Tianran
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Sent from WeLink
>>> *发件人： *Robert Raszuk
>>> *收件人： *Yingzhen Qu
>>> *抄送： *idr;grow;lsr
>>> *主题： *Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>>> *时间： *2022-07-11 18:01:47
>>>
>>> Hi Yingzhen,
>>>
>>> Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF
>>> elements.
>>>
>>> And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I
>>> wrote BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to
>>> protocols as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on
>>> UPA/PUA/PULSE could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.
>>>
>>> But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.
>>>
>>> Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use
>>> nail and hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work
>>> much better for specific tasks :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> R.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Robert,

 Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from
 OSPF. BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking
 IGPs to carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol
 

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Tony Przygienda]

which as proposal actually looks IMO more interesting than IMP thingy ...
_IF_ we want to do such a thing

As to IMP itself very terse

a) configuration is already standardized via NETCONF WG/channels/methods.
pulling it via this seems redundant.
b) YANG is already pulled via other channels so I see little value of
pulling it here. same as a) basically
c) adding all those "sync" via SNP is basically building a flooding peer
again as far I can deduct having flown quickly over the draft. Doing that
over QUIC/TCP is a bad idea due to head-on blocking problems well known
with flooding. if the consumer cannot keep up with the real stream the
sender can only start to throw away stuff or reset the session practically
speaking
d) beats me why you would want this to carry BGP-LS again if y6ou can
simply run another session/BGP instance on any good implementation today.

Given all the big wishlist included in the draft protocol needs probably
something to negotiate WHAT of all the whole panopticum the producer can
support unless it's somehow in the PUB/SUB (but then again, this probably
needs mode negotiation as well given the plethora of possibilities there).

-- tony

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:54 PM Tianran Zhou  wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
> This is very interesting to me. We had a protocol design for IGP monitoring:
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp-01
>
> It would be a good idea if we can find some common ground.
>
> Cheers,
> Tianran
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sent from WeLink
> *发件人： *Robert Raszuk
> *收件人： *Tianran Zhou
> *抄送： *Yingzhen Qu;idr;grow<
> grow@ietf.org>;lsr
> *主题： *Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
> *时间： *2022-07-11 22:05:31
>
> Hi Tianran,
>
> Yes it is,
>
> I dedicated entire paragraph in section 1 of the document to highlight
> that point:
>
>The primary inspiration for this work has been based on the success
>of BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] which in a number of
>aspects shares the same high level requirements - point to point
>routing information distribution, protocol observability and enhanced
>operations.  It also needs to be highlighted that BMP (while it
>technically could) does not use native BGP sessions to propagate such
>information, but is running a separate transport.  IMP authors have
>chosen to reuse selected BMP building blocks and BMP operational and
>deployment experience.
>
>
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:02 PM Tianran Zhou 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
>> Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Tianran
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sent from WeLink
>> *发件人： *Robert Raszuk
>> *收件人： *Yingzhen Qu
>> *抄送： *idr;grow;lsr
>> *主题： *Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>> *时间： *2022-07-11 18:01:47
>>
>> Hi Yingzhen,
>>
>> Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF
>> elements.
>>
>> And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I
>> wrote BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to
>> protocols as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on
>> UPA/PUA/PULSE could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.
>>
>> But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.
>>
>> Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail
>> and hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much
>> better for specific tasks :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> R.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from
>>> OSPF. BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking
>>> IGPs to carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol
>>> convergence, and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information.
>>>
>>> BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can retrieve
>>> the entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some data
>>> instances.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yingzhen
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Acee,
>>>
>>> My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the
>>> draft.
>>>
>>> So I do not think I misinterpreted it.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> R.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Robert,



 *From: *Lsr  on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
 rob...@raszuk.net>
 *Date: *Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM
 *To: *Yingzhen Qu 
 *Cc: *Gyan Mishra , Susan Hares ,
 IDR List , "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" ,
 lsr 
 *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] [Idr] [GROW] IGP Monitoring Protocol



 Hi Yingzhen & OSPF-GT authors,



 UP front I must state that anything is better to export IGP 

Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Robert Raszuk]

Hello Tianran,

Oh I was not aware of such document. Did you ever share it with LSR WG
before ?

Quick browsing reveals that you have taken a bit different approach .. very
IGP centric borrowing IGP encoding at the message level.

For example peer state notification I purposely decided not to include as
this is already reflected in the LSDB.

I will take a more detail read of your spec. Then we can talk if there is
some overlap or both approaches are so different then it makes sense to
progress both. One size does not fit all :)

Best,
R.




On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:54 PM Tianran Zhou  wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
> This is very interesting to me. We had a protocol design for IGP monitoring:
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp-01
>
> It would be a good idea if we can find some common ground.
>
> Cheers,
> Tianran
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sent from WeLink
> *发件人： *Robert Raszuk
> *收件人： *Tianran Zhou
> *抄送： *Yingzhen Qu;idr;grow<
> grow@ietf.org>;lsr
> *主题： *Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
> *时间： *2022-07-11 22:05:31
>
> Hi Tianran,
>
> Yes it is,
>
> I dedicated entire paragraph in section 1 of the document to highlight
> that point:
>
>The primary inspiration for this work has been based on the success
>of BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] which in a number of
>aspects shares the same high level requirements - point to point
>routing information distribution, protocol observability and enhanced
>operations.  It also needs to be highlighted that BMP (while it
>technically could) does not use native BGP sessions to propagate such
>information, but is running a separate transport.  IMP authors have
>chosen to reuse selected BMP building blocks and BMP operational and
>deployment experience.
>
>
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:02 PM Tianran Zhou 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
>> Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Tianran
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sent from WeLink
>> *发件人： *Robert Raszuk
>> *收件人： *Yingzhen Qu
>> *抄送： *idr;grow;lsr
>> *主题： *Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>> *时间： *2022-07-11 18:01:47
>>
>> Hi Yingzhen,
>>
>> Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF
>> elements.
>>
>> And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I
>> wrote BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to
>> protocols as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on
>> UPA/PUA/PULSE could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.
>>
>> But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.
>>
>> Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail
>> and hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much
>> better for specific tasks :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> R.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from
>>> OSPF. BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking
>>> IGPs to carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol
>>> convergence, and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information.
>>>
>>> BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can retrieve
>>> the entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some data
>>> instances.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yingzhen
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Acee,
>>>
>>> My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the
>>> draft.
>>>
>>> So I do not think I misinterpreted it.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> R.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Robert,



 *From: *Lsr  on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
 rob...@raszuk.net>
 *Date: *Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM
 *To: *Yingzhen Qu 
 *Cc: *Gyan Mishra , Susan Hares ,
 IDR List , "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" ,
 lsr 
 *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] [Idr] [GROW] IGP Monitoring Protocol



 Hi Yingzhen & OSPF-GT authors,



 UP front I must state that anything is better to export IGP information
 from routers to interested nodes than using BGP for it.



 But to propose using OSPF to transport ISIS seems pretty brave :) I
 must admit it !



 With that I have few questions to the proposal - assuming the use case
 is to distribute links state info in a *point to point* fashion:



1. What is the advantage - if any - to use a new OSPF
instance/process to send link state data over a unicast session to a
controller ?



 It doesn’t have to be unicast, the remote neighbor construct just
 extends the 

Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Tianran Zhou]

Hi Robert,

This is very interesting to me. We had a protocol design for IGP monitoring:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gu-opsawg-network-monitoring-igp-01

It would be a good idea if we can find some common ground.

Cheers,
Tianran






Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Tianran Zhoumailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>>
抄送： Yingzhen 
Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>;idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 22:05:31

Hi Tianran,

Yes it is,

I dedicated entire paragraph in section 1 of the document to highlight that 
point:


   The primary inspiration for this work has been based on the success
   of BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] which in a number of
   aspects shares the same high level requirements - point to point
   routing information distribution, protocol observability and enhanced
   operations.  It also needs to be highlighted that BMP (while it
   technically could) does not use native BGP sessions to propagate such
   information, but is running a separate transport.  IMP authors have
   chosen to reuse selected BMP building blocks and BMP operational and
   deployment experience.



Many thx,
R.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:02 PM Tianran Zhou 
mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?


Best,
Tianran



Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Yingzhen Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
抄送： 
idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 18:01:47

Hi Yingzhen,

Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF elements.

And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I wrote 
BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to protocols 
as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on UPA/PUA/PULSE 
could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.

But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.

Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail and 
hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much better 
for specific tasks :)

Cheers,
R.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu 
mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from OSPF. 
BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking IGPs to 
carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol convergence, 
and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information.

BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can retrieve the 
entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some data instances.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk 
mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:

Hi Acee,

My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the draft.

So I do not think I misinterpreted it.

Thank you,
R.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Date: Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>>, Susan 
Hares mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>>, IDR List 
mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, "grow@ietf.org 
grow@ietf.org" mailto:grow@ietf.org>>, lsr 
mailto:l...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Idr] [GROW] IGP Monitoring Protocol

Hi Yingzhen & OSPF-GT authors,

UP front I must state that anything is better to export IGP information from 
routers to interested nodes than using BGP for it.

But to propose using OSPF to transport ISIS seems pretty brave :) I must admit 
it !

With that I have few questions to the proposal - assuming the use case is to 
distribute links state info in a point to point fashion:


  1.  What is the advantage - if any - to use a new OSPF instance/process to 
send link state data over a unicast session to a controller ?

It doesn’t have to be unicast, the remote neighbor construct just extends the 
possibilities in OSPF-GT. With an OSPF LSDB, the obvious advantage is all the 
protocol machinery is in place.  Note that LSDB streaming is just but one use 
case and of OSPF-GT. The detals of this application would be specified in a 
separate draft.



  1.  The draft is pretty silent on the nature of such a p2p session. Please be 
explicit if this is TCP, QUIC or what ?

It is OSPF, OSPF has its own protocol identifier (89). This draft just extends 
OSPF. I think you’ve misinterpreted the draft. Hence, your other 

Re: [GROW] draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-02 - review/comment

[Paolo Lucente]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks very much for your further review, much appreciated.

I  incorporated some of your comments, although others were not clear to 
me (a-la they span different paragraphs). I have just submitted the 
document with what i could merge, since today is last day for 
submissions. Maybe we can discuss the rest in person in Philly and make 
it part of next revision.


Paolo


On 8/7/22 09:57, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote:

Hi Paolo,

I reviewed

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-02 



and have some minor nits and simplifications in wording to be considered.

Best wishes

Thomas

Change from

    Vendors need the ability to define proprietary Information Elements,

    because, for example, they are delivering a pre-standard product.

To

    Vendors need the ability to define proprietary Information Elements

    for various reasons such as delivering a pre-standard product.

Change from

    This This would align with Also for code point assignment to be

    eligible, an IETF document needs to be adopted at a Working Group and

    in a stable condition.

To

    This aligns also with code point assignments where a document

    needs to be at stable condition in IETF Working Group first.

Change from

    shipped to network operators to be tested there as well.

To

    shipped to network operators for testing.

Change from

    This would align with This document re-defines the format of IANA-

    registered TLVs in a backward compatible manner with respect to

    previous documents and existing IANA allocations;

To

    This document re-defines the format of IANA-

    registered TLVs in a backward compatible manner with respect to

    previous documents and existing IANA allocations;

Change from

    The encoding specified in this document applies to all existing BMP

    Message Types and their namespaces defined in Future BMP Message

    Types MUST make use of the TLV encoding defined in this document.

To

    The TLV encoding specified in this document applies to all existing

    and future BMP Message Types and their namespaces.

.


___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow


___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

See one typo.

From: GROW  on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" 

Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 at 10:45 AM
To: Gyan Mishra , Yingzhen Qu 
Cc: IDR List , "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" , 
lsr 
Subject: Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

Hi Gyan,

From: GROW  on behalf of Gyan Mishra 

Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 at 1:41 AM
To: Yingzhen Qu 
Cc: IDR List , "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" , 
lsr 
Subject: Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

Hi Yingzhen

So with OSPFV2 using RFC 6549 would support multiple instances or OSPFV3 
already supports instances, how is the GT instance differentiated from any 
other routed instance?

Did you read the draft? The main difference is that since OSPF-GT is 
generalized to be used for non-routing, there is installation of routes.

“No installation of routes”…


OSPF-GT neighbors need not be directly attached (or come with complex OSPF 
Virtual-Link considerations and processing). Depending on the application, the 
extent to which the “condition of reachability” is enforced MUST be described 
in the document describing the application usage of OSPF-GT.


For OSPFV2 it would use Opaque LSA Type 9,10,21 similar to RSVP-TE with an 
opaque option code for GTI.

For OSPFV3 it would use an OSPFV3 function code for GTI.

So the NBI BGP-LS peering to the PCE/SDN controller would be replaced with a   
OSPF GTI neighbor ?

It could be but that is just one OSPF-GT use case and would need to be 
described in a separate draft.

Would you still need a standard routed OSPF neighbor for reachability or I 
guess you could put a static route on the controller across the NBI for 
reachability.

Yes.

Is that correct?

Are there any operators implementations of this using OSPF GTI in place of 
BGP-LS?

You mean OSPF-GT… Since the draft to describe the details of using OSPF-GT in 
place of BGP-LS is yet to be written, it would be very strange indeed if it 
were already deployed. 

RFC 6823 provides the same GTI solution for ISIS.

Yes and no, OSPF-GT is able to cover a much wider range of applications than 
RFC 683. This is due mostly to OSPF (and especially OSPFv3 with extended LSAs) 
being much more flexible than IS-IS.


Are there any operators implementations of this using OSPF GTI in place of 
BGP-LS?

No - answered above.

Thanks,
Acee


Kind Regards

Gyan

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 1:04 AM Yingzhen Qu 
mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,

Since we’re discussing possible solutions, I’d like to bring up the draft: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-transport-instance/

We just submitted a new version. The name of the document is changed to 
“OSPF-GT (Generalized Transport)”, and a use case is added to use OSPF-GT as a 
possible replacement of BGP-LS.

Note: OSPF-GT is not traditional OSPF, and it’s not used to calculate routes. 
It uses the reachability info calculated by routing protocols, OSPF, ISIS or 
static routing etc.. It provides mechanisms to advertise non-routing 
information, and remote neighbor is supported.

Reviews and comments are welcome.


Thanks,
Yingzhen


On Jul 9, 2022, at 5:33 PM, Gyan Mishra 
mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>> wrote:


During the interim meeting we should keep it open to discuss all possible 
alternatives to BGP-LS.

Thanks

Gyan

On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 4:45 PM Susan Hares 
mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>> wrote:
Jeff:

An interim sounds like a good plan.

[IDR-chair hat]
Alvaro has indicated that since all of the proposal received on the IDR list 
are new protocol proposals,
· Capturing IDR’s input on BGP-LS problems and potential solutions is 
appropriate for IDR as BGP-LS home.
· Refining any potential non-BGP solutions is outside of the scope of 
IDR.

[IDR-chair hat off]
[rtgwg WG member]
I’d love to attend an interim on this topic.

Sue Hares


From: Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2022 3:40 PM
To: Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:a...@cisco.com>>; lsr 
mailto:l...@ietf.org>>; i...@ietf.org; 
Susan Hares mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>>; 
grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org 
mailto:grow@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol



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 
mailto: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 

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit (Ends 02/May/2022)

[Paolo Lucente]

Hi Job,

Thanks very much & just done. Submitted draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-00

Paolo


On 5/7/22 18:03, Job Snijders wrote:

Dear all,

The call for working group adoption ended some time ago, it seems
numerous people are in favor of progressing this work in the GROW
working group.

Authors - please resubmit this draft as 'draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit'

Kind regards,

Job
GROW co-chair

On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:19:19PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:

Hi GROW,

At the IETF 113 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
could consider adoption for draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit.

This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
internet-draft should be adopted.

Title:
Support for Enterprise-specific TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
Abstract:
Message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) do
provision for data in TLV - Type, Length, Value - format, either in
the shape of optional TLVs at the end of a BMP message or Stats
Reports TLVs.  However the space for Type value is unique and
governed by IANA.  To allow the usage of vendor-specific TLVs, a
mechanism to define per-vendor Type values is required.  In this
document we introduce an Enterprise Bit, or E-bit, for such purpose.

The Internet-Draft can be found here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit

Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be
adopted by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this
draft!

WG Adoption call ends May 2nd, 2022.

Kind regards,

Job


___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow


___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Hi Gyan,

From: GROW  on behalf of Gyan Mishra 

Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 at 1:41 AM
To: Yingzhen Qu 
Cc: IDR List , "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" , 
lsr 
Subject: Re: [GROW] [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

Hi Yingzhen

So with OSPFV2 using RFC 6549 would support multiple instances or OSPFV3 
already supports instances, how is the GT instance differentiated from any 
other routed instance?

Did you read the draft? The main difference is that since OSPF-GT is 
generalized to be used for non-routing, there is installation of routes. 
OSPF-GT neighbors need not be directly attached (or come with complex OSPF 
Virtual-Link considerations and processing). Depending on the application, the 
extent to which the “condition of reachability” is enforced MUST be described 
in the document describing the application usage of OSPF-GT.


For OSPFV2 it would use Opaque LSA Type 9,10,21 similar to RSVP-TE with an 
opaque option code for GTI.

For OSPFV3 it would use an OSPFV3 function code for GTI.

So the NBI BGP-LS peering to the PCE/SDN controller would be replaced with a   
OSPF GTI neighbor ?

It could be but that is just one OSPF-GT use case and would need to be 
described in a separate draft.

Would you still need a standard routed OSPF neighbor for reachability or I 
guess you could put a static route on the controller across the NBI for 
reachability.

Yes.

Is that correct?

Are there any operators implementations of this using OSPF GTI in place of 
BGP-LS?

You mean OSPF-GT… Since the draft to describe the details of using OSPF-GT in 
place of BGP-LS is yet to be written, it would be very strange indeed if it 
were already deployed. 

RFC 6823 provides the same GTI solution for ISIS.

Yes and no, OSPF-GT is able to cover a much wider range of applications than 
RFC 683. This is due mostly to OSPF (and especially OSPFv3 with extended LSAs) 
being much more flexible than IS-IS.


Are there any operators implementations of this using OSPF GTI in place of 
BGP-LS?

No - answered above.

Thanks,
Acee


Kind Regards

Gyan

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 1:04 AM Yingzhen Qu 
mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,

Since we’re discussing possible solutions, I’d like to bring up the draft: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-transport-instance/

We just submitted a new version. The name of the document is changed to 
“OSPF-GT (Generalized Transport)”, and a use case is added to use OSPF-GT as a 
possible replacement of BGP-LS.

Note: OSPF-GT is not traditional OSPF, and it’s not used to calculate routes. 
It uses the reachability info calculated by routing protocols, OSPF, ISIS or 
static routing etc.. It provides mechanisms to advertise non-routing 
information, and remote neighbor is supported.

Reviews and comments are welcome.


Thanks,
Yingzhen



On Jul 9, 2022, at 5:33 PM, Gyan Mishra 
mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>> wrote:


During the interim meeting we should keep it open to discuss all possible 
alternatives to BGP-LS.

Thanks

Gyan

On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 4:45 PM Susan Hares 
mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>> wrote:
Jeff:

An interim sounds like a good plan.

[IDR-chair hat]
Alvaro has indicated that since all of the proposal received on the IDR list 
are new protocol proposals,
· Capturing IDR’s input on BGP-LS problems and potential solutions is 
appropriate for IDR as BGP-LS home.
· Refining any potential non-BGP solutions is outside of the scope of 
IDR.

[IDR-chair hat off]
[rtgwg WG member]
I’d love to attend an interim on this topic.

Sue Hares


From: Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2022 3:40 PM
To: Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:a...@cisco.com>>; lsr 
mailto:l...@ietf.org>>; i...@ietf.org; 
Susan Hares mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>>; 
grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org 
mailto:grow@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol



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 
mailto: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 

Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Robert Raszuk]

Hi Tianran,

Yes it is,

I dedicated entire paragraph in section 1 of the document to highlight that
point:

   The primary inspiration for this work has been based on the success
   of BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] which in a number of
   aspects shares the same high level requirements - point to point
   routing information distribution, protocol observability and enhanced
   operations.  It also needs to be highlighted that BMP (while it
   technically could) does not use native BGP sessions to propagate such
   information, but is running a separate transport.  IMP authors have
   chosen to reuse selected BMP building blocks and BMP operational and
   deployment experience.



Many thx,
R.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:02 PM Tianran Zhou  wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
> Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?
>
>
> Best,
> Tianran
>
> --
>
> Sent from WeLink
> *发件人： *Robert Raszuk
> *收件人： *Yingzhen Qu
> *抄送： *idr;grow;lsr
> *主题： *Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
> *时间： *2022-07-11 18:01:47
>
> Hi Yingzhen,
>
> Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF
> elements.
>
> And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I
> wrote BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to
> protocols as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on
> UPA/PUA/PULSE could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.
>
> But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.
>
> Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail
> and hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much
> better for specific tasks :)
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from OSPF.
>> BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking IGPs to
>> carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol
>> convergence, and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information.
>>
>> BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can retrieve
>> the entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some data
>> instances.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yingzhen
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Acee,
>>
>> My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the
>> draft.
>>
>> So I do not think I misinterpreted it.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> R.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Lsr  on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
>>> rob...@raszuk.net>
>>> *Date: *Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM
>>> *To: *Yingzhen Qu 
>>> *Cc: *Gyan Mishra , Susan Hares ,
>>> IDR List , "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" ,
>>> lsr 
>>> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] [Idr] [GROW] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Yingzhen & OSPF-GT authors,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> UP front I must state that anything is better to export IGP information
>>> from routers to interested nodes than using BGP for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But to propose using OSPF to transport ISIS seems pretty brave :) I must
>>> admit it !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> With that I have few questions to the proposal - assuming the use case
>>> is to distribute links state info in a *point to point* fashion:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. What is the advantage - if any - to use a new OSPF
>>>instance/process to send link state data over a unicast session to a
>>>controller ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn’t have to be unicast, the remote neighbor construct just
>>> extends the possibilities in OSPF-GT. With an OSPF LSDB, the obvious
>>> advantage is all the protocol machinery is in place.  Note that LSDB
>>> streaming is just but one use case and of OSPF-GT. The detals of this
>>> application would be specified in a separate draft.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. The draft is pretty silent on the nature of such a p2p session.
>>>Please be explicit if this is TCP, QUIC or what ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is OSPF, OSPF has its own protocol identifier (89). This draft just
>>> extends OSPF. I think you’ve misinterpreted the draft. Hence, your other
>>> questions aren’t really applicable or would be answered in a draft of the
>>> OSPF/IS-IS LSDB usage of OSPF-GT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> C) The draft is pretty silent on types of authentication for such
>>> sessions. Security considerations are pretty weak in that respect as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The security considerations for OSPF-GT will be similar to those for
>>>OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340].  However, since OSPF-GT is not
>>>used to update OSPF routing, the consequences of attacks will be
>>>dependent on advertised non-routing information.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would actually argue that security considerations of p2p remote
>>> 

Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Tianran Zhou]

Hi Robert,

I see this name very similar to BMP bgp monitoring protocol.
Is this the similar function and scope as BMP?


Best,
Tianran



Sent from WeLink
发件人： Robert Raszukmailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
收件人： Yingzhen Qumailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
抄送： 
idrmailto:i...@ietf.org>>;growmailto:grow@ietf.org>>;lsrmailto:l...@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol
时间： 2022-07-11 18:01:47

Hi Yingzhen,

Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF elements.

And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I wrote 
BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to protocols 
as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on UPA/PUA/PULSE 
could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.

But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.

Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail and 
hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much better 
for specific tasks :)

Cheers,
R.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu 
mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from OSPF. 
BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking IGPs to 
carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol convergence, 
and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information.

BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can retrieve the 
entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some data instances.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk 
mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:

Hi Acee,

My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the draft.

So I do not think I misinterpreted it.

Thank you,
R.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,

From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Date: Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>>, Susan 
Hares mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>>, IDR List 
mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, "grow@ietf.org 
grow@ietf.org" mailto:grow@ietf.org>>, lsr 
mailto:l...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Idr] [GROW] IGP Monitoring Protocol

Hi Yingzhen & OSPF-GT authors,

UP front I must state that anything is better to export IGP information from 
routers to interested nodes than using BGP for it.

But to propose using OSPF to transport ISIS seems pretty brave :) I must admit 
it !

With that I have few questions to the proposal - assuming the use case is to 
distribute links state info in a point to point fashion:


  1.  What is the advantage - if any - to use a new OSPF instance/process to 
send link state data over a unicast session to a controller ?

It doesn’t have to be unicast, the remote neighbor construct just extends the 
possibilities in OSPF-GT. With an OSPF LSDB, the obvious advantage is all the 
protocol machinery is in place.  Note that LSDB streaming is just but one use 
case and of OSPF-GT. The detals of this application would be specified in a 
separate draft.



  1.  The draft is pretty silent on the nature of such a p2p session. Please be 
explicit if this is TCP, QUIC or what ?

It is OSPF, OSPF has its own protocol identifier (89). This draft just extends 
OSPF. I think you’ve misinterpreted the draft. Hence, your other questions 
aren’t really applicable or would be answered in a draft of the OSPF/IS-IS LSDB 
usage of OSPF-GT.

Thanks,
Acee



C) The draft is pretty silent on types of authentication for such sessions. 
Security considerations are pretty weak in that respect as well.

   The security considerations for OSPF-GT will be similar to those for
   OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340].  However, since OSPF-GT is not
   used to update OSPF routing, the consequences of attacks will be
   dependent on advertised non-routing information.

I would actually argue that security considerations of p2p remote neighbors are 
actually quite different from security considerations of flooding data.

Along the same lines security is not about protecting your routing ... it is 
much more about protecting the entire network by exposing critical information 
externally to non authorized parties.

D) Are there any PUB-SUB options possible for OSPF-GT ?

E) Is there any filtering possible for OSPF-GT ?

F) Are you envisioning use of OSPF-GT proxies and if so are you planning to add 
this to the document ?

G) How are you going to address Receivers which do not support OSPF-GT parser ?

H) As you know many operators are attracted to BGP-LS based on the fact that it 
offers the same view of information irrespective of what is the protocol 
producing the data. Is there some thought on such normalization in the 

Re: [GROW] [Lsr] [Idr] IGP Monitoring Protocol

[Robert Raszuk]

Hi Yingzhen,

Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF
elements.

And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I
wrote BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to
protocols as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on
UPA/PUA/PULSE could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion.

But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS.

Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail
and hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much
better for specific tasks :)

Cheers,
R.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu  wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from OSPF.
> BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking IGPs to
> carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol
> convergence, and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information.
>
> BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can retrieve
> the entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some data
> instances.
>
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
>
> On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk  wrote:
>
> Hi Acee,
>
> My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the draft.
>
> So I do not think I misinterpreted it.
>
> Thank you,
> R.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Lsr  on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
>> rob...@raszuk.net>
>> *Date: *Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM
>> *To: *Yingzhen Qu 
>> *Cc: *Gyan Mishra , Susan Hares ,
>> IDR List , "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" ,
>> lsr 
>> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] [Idr] [GROW] IGP Monitoring Protocol
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Yingzhen & OSPF-GT authors,
>>
>>
>>
>> UP front I must state that anything is better to export IGP information
>> from routers to interested nodes than using BGP for it.
>>
>>
>>
>> But to propose using OSPF to transport ISIS seems pretty brave :) I must
>> admit it !
>>
>>
>>
>> With that I have few questions to the proposal - assuming the use case is
>> to distribute links state info in a *point to point* fashion:
>>
>>
>>
>>1. What is the advantage - if any - to use a new OSPF
>>instance/process to send link state data over a unicast session to a
>>controller ?
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn’t have to be unicast, the remote neighbor construct just extends
>> the possibilities in OSPF-GT. With an OSPF LSDB, the obvious advantage is
>> all the protocol machinery is in place.  Note that LSDB streaming is just
>> but one use case and of OSPF-GT. The detals of this application would be
>> specified in a separate draft.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1. The draft is pretty silent on the nature of such a p2p session.
>>Please be explicit if this is TCP, QUIC or what ?
>>
>>
>>
>> It is OSPF, OSPF has its own protocol identifier (89). This draft just
>> extends OSPF. I think you’ve misinterpreted the draft. Hence, your other
>> questions aren’t really applicable or would be answered in a draft of the
>> OSPF/IS-IS LSDB usage of OSPF-GT.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> C) The draft is pretty silent on types of authentication for such
>> sessions. Security considerations are pretty weak in that respect as well.
>>
>>
>>
>>The security considerations for OSPF-GT will be similar to those for
>>OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340].  However, since OSPF-GT is not
>>used to update OSPF routing, the consequences of attacks will be
>>dependent on advertised non-routing information.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would actually argue that security considerations of p2p remote
>> neighbors are actually quite different from security considerations of
>> flooding data.
>>
>>
>>
>> Along the same lines security is not about protecting your routing ... it
>> is much more about protecting the entire network by exposing critical
>> information externally to non authorized parties.
>>
>>
>>
>> D) Are there any PUB-SUB options possible for OSPF-GT ?
>>
>>
>>
>> E) Is there any filtering possible for OSPF-GT ?
>>
>>
>>
>> F) Are you envisioning use of OSPF-GT proxies and if so are you planning
>> to add this to the document ?
>>
>>
>>
>> G) How are you going to address Receivers which do not support OSPF-GT
>> parser ?
>>
>>
>>
>> H) As you know many operators are attracted to BGP-LS based on the fact
>> that it offers the same view of information irrespective of what is the
>> protocol producing the data. Is there some thought on such normalization in
>> the OSPF-GT proposal ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I) What's the take of OSPF-GT draft authors on the YANG model in respect
>> of using it for normalization of exported data ?
>>
>>
>>
>> To summarize IMHO we should not stretch routing protocols be it OSPF,
>> ISIS or BGP to be messengers of link state data running and to artificially
>> force them to run in a point-to-point model between router and