Subject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] I-D Action:draft-ietf-grow-bmp-05.txt

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:26:27 +0100

John at all,

> 	Title           : BGP Monitoring Protocol
> 	Author(s)       : J. Scudder, et al.
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-grow-bmp-05.txt
> 	Pages           : 16
> 	Date            : 2010-12-15

If I remember correctly the fundamental reason for bmp was to provide a 
very simple mechanism for replaying content of received updates from the 
peers as well as provide some form of signaling reg their state 
transition. That goal was great.

Unfortunately version -01 and above moved away from this and simplified 
the requirement to reply/send content of Adj_RIB_In instead of those 
coming updates from the peers.

So we are effectively loosing the most crucial part of the original 
proposal as we no longer be able to pass to some observatory linux 
station those prefixes which were dropped on inbound or worse any 
potential malformed updates or attributes if they were not stored in the 
RIB_In.

I think it defeats a lot of use cases. Perhaps this subtle difference 
should be discussed more before we proceed any further with this document.

Many thx,
R.