Re: [sidr] adopt a mib

["Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <[e-mail]>]

Inline

On 8/5/11 8:39 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Bert,
>
> Many thx for your comment .. I was not able to stay at the IETF till the SIDR session.
>
> If that is the case the draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib is just completely not ready for adoption until it contains bare 
> minimum which will allow operators to use it.
>
The MIB module is not ready for WGLC, I agree on that.
In my feel, the adoption question is more of: Does the WG want to work on
these 2 MIB modules. The exact content then needs to be agreed on by the WG.
If you want to see another individual draft with better content first.. I have
no problem with that, up to the chair to decide I think.

> It would be insane to list 1 million of valid prefixes as opposed to little fractionof them being in question. Whoever authored 
> that draft needs to develop a bit more real network operational experience :)
>
I did not author it, but I am now working on it.
I am a MIB/SMI/SNMP guy. Not a router or BGP or RPKI expert.
Constructive input is helpfull

The table (as in the current I-D) has this attribute:
   bgpVRTValid OBJECT-TYPE
         SYNTAX      INTEGER { unknown(1), valid(2), invalid(3) }
         MAX-ACCESS  read-create
         STATUS      current
         DESCRIPTION
            "This is indicates if the state of the roa associated with
             this row."
         DEFVAL { unknown }
         ::= { bgpValROATableEntry 5 }

So my answer to your comments:
- listing the status (unknown, valid or invalid) will only result in
    MORE entries than just listing the valid ones.
- My understanding is/was that the table might have some 300K entries
    But that is from hearsay.
    Anyways, that is still a lot, I Understand that. And therefor, proper
    indexing is important. I need to know what sort of queries operators
    are most likely to do on this table.
    If you (with lots of operator experience I assume) or others can help
    me with that, that would be great.

Bert

> Best regards,
> R.
>
>> During the discussion at the SIDR WG session at IETF81 we
>> found that the bgpVRTValid attribute in that table makes no
>> sense, because we do not have that info. These are ALL
>> validated ROAs (or better validated prefixes) as I understand
>> it.
>>
>> Bert
>> On 8/5/11 8:09 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just looking at draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib may I ask what
>>> would be the root OID string to start SNMP tree walk (or set the trap)
>>> to list all INVALID or NOT_FOUND BGP entries ?
>>>
>>> Rgs,
>>> R.
>
>
>