I just got done re-reading this draft. Upon review, I'm wondering if instead of creating a new type that simply adding a new sub-type may be more appropriate.
The current proposal effectively replaces the current PEER_INDEX_TABLE with a new one that has the WGS84 records. Consider instead that a new sub-type table is defined which has a similar structure to the PEER_INDEX_TABLE. It would simply provide a matching augmentation of the PEER_INDEX_TABLE by carrying the geo records. This has the advantage that it requires fewer changes to existing implementations. In particular, it permits older MRT file readers to be able to continue to parse the dump data. Only the new geoip information would be opaque. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
