[GROW] review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-07 (preparing for sheperd write-up)
Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Tue, 03 November 2020 06:13 UTC
Return-Path: <job@ntt.net>
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 AEDDF3A14B4 for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:13:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 O-_EJ6_NXRzV for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:13:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail4.sttlwa01.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail4.sttlwa01.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:110::40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A5B53A14A8 for <grow@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:13:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bench.sobornost.net (mieli.sobornost.net [45.138.228.4]) by mail4.sttlwa01.us.to.gin.ntt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21651220161; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 06:13:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (bench.sobornost.net [local]) by bench.sobornost.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 2427a114; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 06:13:27 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 06:13:27 +0000
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: grow@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20201103061327.GU82986@bench.sobornost.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/i4jo1nCpNNs3IVWfP0Rvs75UiDY>
Subject: [GROW] review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-07 (preparing for sheperd write-up)
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 06:13:43 -0000
Dear group, authors As part of the sheperd write-up I am reviewing the draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-07 Internet-Draft. Overall the document looks good to me. Please consider these notes as input from an individual working group participant. The suggestions are editorial in nature, my focus on readability and clarity. Thank you for your consideration! Kind regards, Job ### note 1 Suggested rewording of Abstract: NEW Abstract: The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to various Routing Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates BMP (RFC 8671) by adding access to the Local Routing Information Base (Loc-RIB), as defined in RFC 4271. The Loc-RIB contains the routes that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision Process. ### note 2 Throughout the document I would suggest changing the phrase "Local-RIB" to "Loc-RIB". ### note 3 Perhaps the first sentence of the introduction reads better if changed to the following: NEW: This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Loc-RIB state of remote BGP instances without the need to establish BGP peering sessions. ### note 4 I have trouble understanding the following: The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests that locally originated routes are locally sourced routes, such as redistributed or otherwise added routes to the BGP instance by the local router. It does not specify routes that are in the BGP instance Loc-RIB, such as routes after best-path selection. ### note 5 OLD: Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy may still contain hundreds of thousands of routes per-peer but only a handful are selected and installed in the Loc-RIB as part of the best-path selection. NEW: The Adj-RIB-In for a given peer Post-Policy may contain hundreds of thousands of routes, with only a handful of routes selected and installed in the Loc-RIB after best-path selection. ### note 6 Section 1.1. "Current method to Monitor Loc-RIB" probably needs to be "Alternative method to monitor Loc-RIB" s/current/alternative/ ### note 7 In section 3, the following change hopefully clarifies that the Loc-RIB as observed through BMP is a composite of potentially-to-be-redistributed-into-BGP-routes and routes received from other peers. OLD: It is further defined that the routes selected include locally originated and routes from all peers. NEW: Note that the Loc-RIB state as monitored through BMP might also contain routes imported from other routing protocols such as an IGP, or local static routes. ### note 8 section 5.3 Curious: why ASCII and not UTF-8 (of which ASCII is a subset)? ### note 9 Section 6.1 states "several methods to implement Loc-RIB efficiently" is this the implementation of Loc-RIB in a BGP-4 speaker? Or the implementation of BMP Loc-RIB monitoring?
- [GROW] review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-07… Job Snijders
- Re: [GROW] review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-ri… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [GROW] review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-ri… Tim Evens (tievens)
- Re: [GROW] review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-ri… Tim Evens (tievens)
- Re: [GROW] review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-ri… Job Snijders
- Re: [GROW] review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-ri… Tim Evens (tievens)
- Re: [GROW] review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-ri… Jeffrey Haas