Hi Acee, Thank you. I was not planning to present it in the upcoming IETF.
> Let’s see how many stakeholders actually want to this protocol - then we can talk about a WG home. An alternative approach could be to see how many stakeholders do not want to further (for no good reason) to trash BGP. That to me would be in this specific case a much better gauge. Kind regards, Robert On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 9:54 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking as WG chair: > > > > *From: *Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, July 8, 2022 at 3:21 PM > *To: *lsr <[email protected]> > *Cc: *IDR List <[email protected]>, Susan Hares <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol > > > > Dear LSR WG, > > > > Based on ongoing discussion in respect to the future of BGP-LS I > committed myself to put together an alternate proposal. > > > > The main goal is not to just publish a -00 version of the draft using > different encapsulation. The goal is to make a useful tool which can help > to export link state information from network elements as well as assist in > network observability. > > > > The IGP Monitoring Protocol (IMP) draft has been posted and should be > available at: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raszuk-lsr-imp/ > > > > One of the key points I wanted to accomplish was full backwards > compatibility with TLVs defined for BGP-LS. In parallel other formats > (optional) are also supported. > > > > The PUB-SUB nature or FILTERING capabilities are in the spec however as > noted in the deployment section there is no expectation that this should be > supported directly on routers. Concept of Producer's Proxies has been > introduced to support this added functionality as well as provide fan-out > (analogy to BGP route reflectors). > > > > I encourage everyone interested to take a look and provide comments. At > this point this document is nothing more than my individual submission. > Offline I have had few conversations with both operators and vendors > expressing some level of interest in this work. How we proceed further (if > at all :) depends on WG feedback. > > > > Kind regards, > > Robert. > > > > PS, I do believe this work belongs in LSR WG pretty squerly. > > > > Let’s see how many stakeholders actually want to this protocol - then we > can talk about a WG home. By stakeholders, I mean operators and vendors > who are committed to implementing and deploying it - not simply those who > you are able to enlist as co-authors. Note that our IETF 114 LSR agenda is > full (with multiple agenda items not making the cut). > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
