Subject: [Idr] BGP MIB representation of RIBs (Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] BGP MIBv2 discontinuity objects)

From: john heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:55:35 -0700

I've not followed the BGP MIBv2 thread closely, but I believe the heat is
related to BGP RIB representation and this is something that I've been
wanting to ask about.

Specifically, we see no value that this kind of data, along with route
attributes, be in a MIB.  Rather it seems to slow standardization and
implementation.  For example, we've been wanting peer in-RIB sums for
some time.

Can't the RIB be eliminated?  If not, can it be split into a separate and
optional MIB?
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:17:01 -0400

> Can't the RIB be eliminated?  If not, can it be split into a separate and

More people have commented about the counters being useful than they've
commented about the NLRI tables being useful.

I will readily admit that the RIB representation is where all of the
churn of the last few years has been.  When I've previously been asked
about removing the RIB data, some people have stated they'd prefer to
see it present.  These people seemed to be interested in monitoring the
stability of a small set of prefixes and the RIB was helpful for that.

Additionally, the earlier version of the MIB (published as RFC 4273) has
the AdjRibsIn and Loc-Rib indirectly present as bgp4PathAttrTable.
Providing this in the address family independent fashion was partially
about keeping existing functionality.

Could the RIB be eliminated?  Possibly.  I think that would upset some
people
and make others happy.

Can it be made optional?  Certainly.  This is just a matter of updating
the conformance statements.  This would require working group consensus.

Could it be split into a separate MIB?  Also possible.

My recommendation would be to keep the RIB.  I have no strong opinion
about keeping it in the same document or making it optional.

-- Jeff

---

From: john heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:43:19 -0700

> about keeping it in the same document or making it optional.

I'd imagine that Cisco, for example, would get pressure to include the RIB.
So, merely making it optional is likely not sufficient.  Implementation of
the "base" MIB would still be constrained by the RIB representation.  It'd
have to be eliminated or separated (hopefully in such a way that it is not
bound to the base MIB).
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr