Hi all,
John G. Scudder wrote:
Fast forward to present, there's been significant renewed interest so
we've dusted off the draft and modified the mechanism to make it more
implementor-friendly. I'm hoping that the WG would still, after the
long hiatus, like to adopt the draft.
Having been thinking myself about a similar custom system from time to
time, this looks very useful to me.
Briefly reading through the draft, I do notice that there is no way to
detect the existence of a peer if it sends no prefixes (except when the
session goes down).
This should probably not be a common case, but we do see it from time to
time. It would be useful for us to be able to have this data.
cheers,
Erik Romijn
RIPE NCC RIS
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
