TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-07
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Paolo Lucente , Yunan Gu | ||
| Last updated | 2022-09-08 (Latest revision 2022-03-07) | ||
| Replaces | draft-lucente-bmp-tlv | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up | |
| Document shepherd | Job Snijders | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | job@fastly.com |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) make provision for optional trailing data. However, Route Monitoring messages (which provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing Information Base) and Peer Down messages (which indicate that a peering session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV format across all BMP message types allows for a homogeneous and extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use-cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station. While it is not intended for this document to cover any specific utilization scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV data in all message types.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)