Hi Jeff & GROWers, Firstly, I support this draft. Because some customers ask us for this feature, and we are also implementing this feature, let's share our thoughts on this point.
Inline with [Shunwan]. Best regards, Shunwan -----Original Message----- From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:46 AM To: Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net> Cc: grow@ietf.org Subject: Re: [GROW] working group last call draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib (ends 2018.11.26) Chairs, On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:12:46PM +0000, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear GROW, > > As suggested in the working group meeting in Bangkok, > draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib may ready for last call. The last call > will be 2 weeks, ending November 26th, 2018. > > Abstract: > > The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to the Adj-RIB-In > and locally originated routes (e.g. routes distributed into BGP from > protocols such as static) but not access to the BGP instance > Loc-RIB. This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) > RFC 7854 by adding access to the BGP instance Local-RIB, as defined > in RFC 4271 the routes that have been selected by the local BGP > speaker's Decision Process. These are the routes over all peers, > locally originated, and after best-path selection. > > The document is at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib > > Please review the document and provide feedback. > > The internet-draft authors should note that Jeff Haas contributed a > comment to the IETF 103 GROW jabber room that unfortunatly wasn't read > out loud. This comment should be considered input into the last call > process: > > jhaas> "For loc-rib draft, list discussion was over whether we should > advertise active route vs. best bgp route. Best bgp route means > that you still need an active bgp session to monitor actual bgp and > doesn't simplify use case." > https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/grow/2018-11-05.html [Shunwan] Based on the requirement of Huawei's customers, they want to monitor the selected NLRIs. One usecase: If a router enable multiple (e.g. 6) parallel EBGP load balancing, and now there are 8 available candidate EBGP routes for one destination D. In this case, there will be 6 routes of the same destination D been selected, and some customers want to monitor all the selected NLRIs. I do wish to get this point resolved. We have inconsistent pressure from our own customer base as to whether they want to monitor best bgp vs. "please give me something to let me stop needing parallel BGP sessions for active route state". [Shunwan] IMO, Section 5.2 of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02 describe a method to send best ecmp group to BMP Station. BMP client can signal add-paths capability to BMP Station via BMP Peer UP message, then BMP Station will know that the client will send multiple NLRI for one destination. That is my understanding. Per my limited knowledge about BMP, I don't understand why we need "parallel BGP sessions for active route state", Sorry. Can you explain it in detail? Thanks, Shunwan One possible outcome is the working group determines that they're wanting to stick with "best bgp route" and I followup with a quick new doc that provides nearly similar behavior with the different outcome. But I'd much rather get this as an option in the current document. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ 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
