Subject: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-mrt-15.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:15:12 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : MRT routing information export format
	Author(s)       : Larry Blunk
                          Manish Karir
                          Craig Labovitz
	Filename        : draft-ietf-grow-mrt-15.txt
	Pages           : 35
	Date            : 2011-07-06

   This document describes the MRT format for routing information
   export.  This format was developed in concert with the Multi-threaded
   Routing Toolkit (MRT) from whence the format takes it name.  The
   format can be used to export routing protocol messages, state
   changes, and routing information base contents.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-mrt-15.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-mrt-15.txt

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:37:43 +0100

>    changes, and routing information base contents.

Similar to BMP, MRT uses 32 bit timestamps.

Once again, the issue is a question of whether to take a pain hit now,
while MRT still has a relatively small install base, or whether to take a
much, much bigger pain hit when we reach 2038 when we have much wider
deployment of MRT + a whole pile of archived records to deal with (as we're
talking about an archive storage mechanism here).

Personally, I'm not a fan of kicking cans down the road.

The standard also lacks a version field in the headers.  If the authors
were to decide that changing the header might be in the protocol's
long-term interest, then adding a version field would probably be a good idea.

Nick
[as with my previous comments on the BMP ID, apologies for jumping in with
a fundamental change suggestion like this on a -15 draft.]

---

From: Larry Blunk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 09:51:39 -0400

On 07/07/2011 07:37 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> _______________________________________________

   Nick,
     These issues were brought up in the IESG last call (lack
of version number + 32 bit timestamps).   Rather than
attempting to apply more band-aids to the specification,
a decision was made that a clean slate design would be
a better choice and the draft was changed from Standards
Track to Informational.  There's an expired draft with
a proposed XML based format --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-grow-bgp-xml-00
with an implementation available at
http://bgpmon.netsec.colostate.edu/

  -Larry Blunk