On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 09:27, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote: 8<
Stretching the analogy to BGP communities slightly (the authors had > already discussed this internally when working on the draft, and Wes has > made that comparison too): > > Folks *could* have decided to use some unassigned BGP Path attribute > value to carry similar information, but each implementor would have had > their own special version of it. Making it _standardised_ is what > allows support to be ubiquitous (and interoperable). > But that is not the case here. Even if the mechanism were to become standardised and ubiquitous, each instance would be interoperable only between two specific consenting parties. IMHO this falls into the "local use" category. --Dick
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
