On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Danny,
Please note that tt is perfectly feasible not to reflect back to the
client for one AFI/SAFI and still reflect back for other AFI/SAFIs.
If your main point complains about the change and permission to
reflect back PATHs to the client introduced by RFC 2796 in the scope
of the Internet let's drop even mentioning the ACCEPT_OWN as not
relevant to the topic.
But it is relevant because it employs that function.
As I said below:
"IF ACCEPT_OWN was a function of the RR, and the
routes were only reflected back to the client IF
that community was presented, I'd be perfectly
fine with it."
-danny
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
