Re: [Idr] BGP MIBv2 implementation

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Bill,

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 02:59:00PM -0400, Bill Fenner wrote:
> > -          **Add support for BGP communities (as in your communities
> > draft) in the NLRI in/out tables.
> >
> There is no reason this can't be a future addition, right, in the interest
> of getting the base functionality out?

There's also a matter of how you cleanly represent this.  I've had prior
drafts suggesting a structure for such a thing, but not a huge amount of
traction in it.  I'm happy to have the bgp mibv2 hit RFC at this point
before I invest the effort. :-)

> 
> > -          **Restore local address (and maybe ports) to bgp4V2PeerTable
> > index to support multiple BGP sessions between two speakers as in
> > draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist
> >
> If the ports are in the INDEX, how do you ever find a row if one of the
> ports is guaranteed to be ephemeral and you don't know a priori who
> originated the connection?

That was the original problem.  The local address and port was originally
part of the index with some attempt to reflect this case.  It made for quite
the mess and was only really used to cover a small number of really
exceptional edge cases in BGP peer configuration.

> An idea that solves both the ports and the unknown-local-address problem is
> to use the remote address and an instance identifier.  Peers with a single
> connection (the "normal" case) would be only instance 1, but if you had
> multiple simultaneous connections to the same remote peer you could use
> more values.

If there's strong consensus, I'm not opposed to adding that.

-- Jeff