Hello, 1. "Special use communities"- Yes, an explanation and example should be sufficient I think.
2. BGP Session Security - Agreed. 2a. Use of MD5 seems sporadic but it is present in many areas. 3. Prefix Length Integrity -Agreed 4. Inbound and Outbound Route Filtering - Bogons and directionality of the filtering - Agreed. a. I think so. b. I wish I did have anything not under NDA. c. Yes, I will help out where ever I can. ------------------- Cheers, Rick Experiences not things. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Bill Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > To make sure I have consensus on the proposed additions: > > 1. "Special use communities" - should this section only cover the concept > and provide examples of how their used? > > 2. BGP Session Security - a mention of conformance with rfc5082 was also > presented, and it I think it makes sense to add, does everyone agree? > 2a. Along those lines is there agreement that the document should have a > section covering basic BGP security considerations? > > 3. Prefix Length Integrity - The idea of identifying a maximum prefix > lengths for both customers and ISPs to accept as well as a potential for a > better defined interpretation of Strict\Loose prefix handling. ie. Loose > = the /24(ipv4) and /48(ipv6). Strict = using the RIR minimal allocation as > the limit. > > 4. Inbound and Outbound Route Filtering - Bogons and directionality of the > filtering. > > Do each of these items cover the concerns identified in the thread? > > Does anyone have either preexisting documentation or draft language to > cover these items? > > Does anyone have a willingness to draft something up? > > Thanks! > Bill > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BCOP mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop > >
_______________________________________________ BCOP mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
