On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Doug Montgomery <[email protected]> wrote: > In some ways I think building a taxonomy of scenarios that could be called > route-leaks is useful, but I do think there is a danger is overly fixating > on a precise definition of a commonly used term (i.e., arguing too much as > to what is or is not a route leak).
The state today is: "I know it when I see it" which isn't super helpful in the 'gosh, it'd sure be nice to stop having ISPA leaking my routes all over creation' fight. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
