Danny,
On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
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."
I think the comment in quotes above demonstrates that at worst,
ACCEPT_OWN is tangential to your RR beef. Suppose the RR spec was
changed to mandate suppression of own routes being sent back to their
originators -- in that case I think we'd be happy to update the
ACCEPT_OWN spec as you describe, to explicitly permit sending just the
special routes back to their originators. Of course it was
unnecessary to spec this in the ACCEPT_OWN doc since as you point out,
reality is that the routes are sent anyway.
So, I agree with Robert (and I think you do too) that this is a
distraction from your primary point.
--John
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
