IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [GROW] A question about RFC7854 stats report

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 04 October 2018 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3556E12785F for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FryrZ3OXeb8N for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0F61286E3 for <grow@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0B4881E45C; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 15:15:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:15:27 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Qing Yang <qyang@arista.com>
Cc: tievens@cisco.com, grow@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181004191527.GE17157@pfrc.org>
References: <CANVvrcobAkBMqte2J=s_hzr++_THrX+0=nn1xzLBi2e+6UP=oQ@mail.gmail.com> <b3e705e7-3ef8-34e8-1875-ed620bb2f412@foobar.org> <CANVvrcpp1gLn_gwQ1CZPdPJjVkifCfXS0ZFQagAMjvpM3U4g+w@mail.gmail.com> <2A965C32-BAF0-4532-B0A1-35823A3DBCFC@pfrc.org> <495768E0-B0D4-4DED-B273-45542A666178@arista.com> <20181003210159.GC17157@pfrc.org> <CANVvrcrsS7rVbC_w_SZOKHCvf_ydQU9FWicXvyhv25=vmHVmbw@mail.gmail.com> <47185E22-CA75-4D59-9D02-8F915F1A7DFB@cisco.com> <CANVvrcpR-7jMKqGigeYTvTNL34xOD0+duZco=g=DoSB47UbJjw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANVvrcpR-7jMKqGigeYTvTNL34xOD0+duZco=g=DoSB47UbJjw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/etSyX6FIOvlhyxsQa8ZHeQBbGPQ>
Subject: Re: [GROW] A question about RFC7854 stats report
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 19:16:02 -0000

Qing,

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:28:30AM -0700, Qing Yang wrote:
> Points well taken... NLRIs will be an improvement in terminology over
> prefixes, too?
> 
> And yes, type 8 as it is worded today, is the reason that I think one
> cannot derive the number of prefixes rejected by inbound policy from type 7
> and 8. So I definitely agree with you that an update to RFC7584 would be
> helpful.

A trivial Internet-Draft, at least once draft-scudder-grow-bmp-registries-change
has gone through.  My suggestion is to gather a list of stats you might want
and kick off the draft.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email