Re: [GROW] I-D Action:draft-ietf-grow-bmp-04.txt

[Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 25, 2010, at 2:14 PM, John Scudder wrote:

> 
> In sum, I question whether there is anything much to be gained from a merger.  There's certainly something to be lost, in terms of delaying progress on BMP implementations.
> 
> I'm thinking of adding a "comparison with MRT" appendix to the next version of the BMP draft since this question has come up a few times now.

That seems a good idea to me, I share the concern of not delaying this any longer.

I do have one question which you may have answered already John, which made 
me quite keen to see BMP progress, I hope you can confirm this for me, and perhaps
contrast the MRT perspective.

I want to be able to look at received updates that may never even find their way into
an Adj-RIB-In, for example because of cluster_list, originator_id, as_confed_* or
as_path loop discards.  Given, they could be legit and implicit withdraws, but I want
to be able to count these, even though I assume (and do realize it's implementation 
specific) they're not stored in any manner on receipt.  

Can you clarify BMP and MRT behavior here for me?

Thanks!

-danny