On 3/21/13 5:40 AM, Pierre Francois wrote:
Hello,
We got some feedback during the last grow session that the "policy violations"
we describe in the draft
are not policy violations but forwarding states that one of the ISPs was not
expecting to see across its network.
Would a renaming of "policy violation" into "unexpected forwarding state"
across the draft do?
it's important I think, to describe from whose vantage point the state
is unexpected. The path taken by traffic is a result of the expression
of the policy applied by all the participants that influenced the path.
The selective advertisement of more specific paths at the orgin for
example is a deliberate act on the part of the originator to influence
path selection whether for performance, arbitrage or other preference
reasons that aren't expressed in the bgp routing system...
Mistakes I think readily produce unexpected results, if you do something
wrong it's likely produce a result you didn't expect.
Cheers,
Pierre.
PS: We were also thinking about "non software defined paths" :-D
All the paths are defined by software.
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
