Re: [Idr] IDR Charter discussion

["Neil J. McRae" <[e-mail]>]

I think 1+2 have some merit but 3 is not managing routing at a human level and shouldn't be here. IMO

 
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 03:51:03PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> The IDR Charter was last revised in March, 2010. 
> 
> It's time to reconsider what needs to go in the charter: 
> 
> Somethings we might include are:

It may be good to consider some operations and management functions to
be specced out in IDR.

>From the operational side of the house I recall a few long-standing
wishes:

    - ability to see which prefixes are accepted/rejected by the
      EBGP neighbor
    - ability to see the maximum prefix limits configured by the
      EBGP neighbor
    - ability to relay some contact / circuit details over an EBGP
      session to facilitate inter-organization coordination

All of the above can be accomplished in non-realtime through out-of-band
mechanisms like e-mail and phone; but this type of out-of-band channels
often are error-prone.

I think we would benefit from actively shifting some of this OAM from
out-of-band into the BGP protocol itself so less coordination is needed
between autonomous system operators.

I am not sure how to exactly word a high level milestone suitable for
the charter. "Add more OAM"? "Add more operational debugging capabilities"? 

Kind regards,

Job

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr