Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

I am afraid the OSPF transport instance draft you quote serves a completely
different purpose.

IMP (IGP Monitoring Protocol) I suggested would be an analogy to BMP (BGP
Monitoring Protocol) unicasting either received flooded LSPs or LSAs or
content of LSDB over TCP or QUIC to some central oracle.

I am not aware such a proposal was ever discussed in LSR WG or its
predecessors WGs.

Many thx,
Robert

PS. And there were and are many real world use cases for such. Till now
folks who needed to listen to link state flooding were always asked to set
up a passive session. But we do see this is not flexible enough. A p2p
protocol is needed. BGP-LS is a living proof of it. In fact IMP could
leverage the exact same encoding as currently sent over BGP-LS SAFI.






On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:35 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From: *Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 7:23 PM
> *To: *"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *IDR List <[e-mail]>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call
> (6/6 to 6/20)
>
>
>
> Dear Les,
>
>
>
> I have two final questions on this:
>
>
>
> on such a mundane topic.
>
>
>
> Would IDR keeping their WG policy in place and mandating two interoperable
> implementations and decent industry support make this topic a little bit
> less *mundane* ?
>
>
>
> If someone actually has an alternative proposal with some detail – that
> would be interesting.
>
>
>
> This proposal to send LSDB across N nodes should come from and within LSR
> WG as we are talking about LSR protocols. Why IDR is even cc-ed and LSR WG
> is not beats me.
>
>
>
> Why can't LSR WG not come with IMP - IGP Monitoring Protocol ?
>
>
>
> We already have the capability in OSPF – See section 3.3 of
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt
>  We just need more support…
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
> PS. Actually the way I read Jeff's note was very positive and extended
> help to LSR WG to make the process seamless. But it seems some folks
> apparently think this is all done - do not waste our time - You IDR-ers
> take what we produce in ISIS and OSPF to BGP forever. That's pretty cool
> indeed :)  And another LSR WG member and ex-chair says if you do not take
> it we will squat codepoints and do it anyway ... so you have no choice.
> Bravo !
>
>
>