Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document

From: "john smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:53:39 +0000

>>
>>Let us assume for a minute that these are not "experimental".
>>
>>
>>Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this?
>
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point.     Are you referring to the lack 
>of framework for what to implement as ORF, or something else?

... all I am saying is that given a "vendor neutral" framework,  as to why 
things (may)"or"(may not be better using ORFs), will people who believe ORF 
helps, stand up and say why and why not it should be used, and under what 
circumstances, instead of "colouring" their bits and bytes as they wish to?

It is exactly what you said in your previous email, I just added to it and 
hoped to clarify it.

If 2 people wish to do the same thing, it makes more sense for them to argue 
why not A instead of B rather than just giving their own proposals.

..I always believed WGs was the place where people can argue and talk 
openly, so that the younger generation can look at it and learn from the 
archives, but perhaps I am mistaken....

-thanks

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:31:46 -0400

At 8:53 PM +0000 7/23/04, john smith wrote:
>>I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point.     Are you referring to 
>>the lack of framework for what to implement as ORF, or something 
>>else?
>
>... all I am saying is that given a "vendor neutral" framework,  as 
>to why things (may)"or"(may not be better using ORFs), will people 
>who believe ORF helps, stand up and say why and why not it should be 
>used, and under what circumstances, instead of "colouring" their 
>bits and bytes as they wish to?
>
>It is exactly what you said in your previous email, I just added to 
>it and hoped to clarify it.
>
>If 2 people wish to do the same thing, it makes more sense for them 
>to argue why not A instead of B rather than just giving their own 
>proposals.
>
>..I always believed WGs was the place where people can argue and 
>talk openly, so that the younger generation can look at it and learn 
>from the archives, but perhaps I am mistaken....

Thank you for the excellent clarification. Yes, this is one of my 
concern. Many, if not most, new technologies originate with vendors. 
It does become a question if variations on a theme sometimes can 
consolidate.

Indeed, some of the ORF work could meaningfully flow back into 
single-router BGP. Now, I may have egg on my face because I missed a 
proposal, but I don't think I've seen a general proposal to put 
prefix-limit-exceeded into the BGP MIB. Yes, I recognize the actual 
(local) prefix limit functionality is implementation specific, but if 
it's worth doing remotely, it's worth doing locally.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:16 -0400

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:31:46PM -0400, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> Now, I may have egg on my face because I missed a 

Speaking as MIB editor, IMO the MIB should reflect protocol elements.
If we put max prefix into some ORF, it will probably make it into
the extension MIB for that ORF.

But, to provide a counter example, the l3vpn group decided to
put in "water marks" to represent the prefix limits.  This was
outside of the protocol, but desired by the working group.  Similarly,
if there is WG consensus on having this in the MIB, we can add
it regardless of whether we choose to do such a thing for an ORF
MIB that carries prefix limits.  (Similar if we do a dynamic capability
extention MIB to accomodate the other major proposal.)

However, if we choose to put in our own "water marks", we risk
conflict with the l3vpn implementation of the same since we carry
2547 type reachability over BGP too.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:06:22 -0400

>2547 type reachability over BGP too.

First, maybe it's just the way that my mind works, but I've always 
conceptualized ORF capabilities as having a certain symmetry. You are 
moving an  acceptance rule on your router to be an advertising rule 
on your peer. This model worked nicely for me, as long as the 
acceptance rules were on protocol elements.

Prefix-limit, however, isn't a protocol element per se, but more of 
an observation of protocol behavior. Let me draw an analogy for 
"observation": flapping isn't a protocol element, but a measurement, 
potentially to be used in damping, is an observation.

Is there a more accepted or elegant way to describe "observation" as 
a (using the term loosely) type in MIBs?

Second, is it plausible to port the l3vpn "water marks" to general 
BGP as well as VPN MP-BGP information?