Re: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Robert Raszuk<raszuk at cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Jim,

(James, normally)

> Besides which version of the draft are we talking of "as is" ? Those in
> version -00 or those on Nanog slides including "good ideas" from pages 11 &
> 12 ?
>
> http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/presentations/Tuesday/Scholl_bgp_adv_light_N46.pdf
>
> Example:
>
> Concept of sticky messages
> •An idea where you can transmit an advisory message to “stick” in the BGP
> neighbor state. This way, upon viewing “show bgp nei x.x.x.x”, you can see
> the latest sticky message transmitted by the peer.
> •Would not be sent to the log.
>
> Question: How can something with random length (without max limit) be part
> of cli show command and yet still make this show command nicely readable and
> parsable by scripts ?
>
> So I would suggest both for sticky msg and syslog msg to have max length
> defined.
>
> Also I think we should enforce the free form language to be ASCII English
> only.
>
> /* And yes I can already see a request coming for a spell checker to be
> added to router's OS ... After all it is in the cell phone why not in the
> router :-) */

and format string checking and.... That's all well past the 'protocol
now carries this new message' though, which I think is IDR's purview,
yes? Every vendor (Doing bgp) will then have figure out how to
shoehorn this into their implementation. First though:

1) is IDR willing to accept the work
2) is this something that the routing protocol should be used for?
3) are the details of the protocol change spec proper/valid/good?

I share the 'overloading bgp yet again is a bad plan' but also
'getting ops to run yet another thing on their hardware and arranging
that to work properly amongst their peers' is not trivial. (so this
goes into bgp, please keep it very simple, small payload + limited
ascii-set)

-Chris

> Cheers,
> R.
>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> I support adopting this as a WG item.
>>
>> However, and I'm sure we will get into this as the WG proceeds, I think
>> there are fundamental elements of this which are bad.  Notably, I don't
>> think that bloating BGP with operator-to-operator messages is a good
>> move to maintain a stable, secure (fwiw) protocol.
>>
>> I agree that the problem of op-2-op communication needs more attention,
>> and I hope with this starting point the WG can forge a reasonable
>> solution that doesn't increase the fragility and risk of operating an
>> Internetwork.
>>
>> --gill
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: idr-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Ron Bonica
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM
>> To: idr at ietf.org
>> Subject: [Idr] draft-scholl-idr-advisory
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Last month, Tom Scholl presented draft-scholl-idr-advisory to NANOG's
>> general meeting in Philadelphia. The operator community demonstrated
>> strong support for the draft.
>>
>> In light of strong operator support, I would like to encourage the WG to
>> consider adopting this draft as a WG item.
>>
>>                                    Ron Bonica
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>