Christopher Morrow writes:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Jay Borkenhagen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > confusion and disappointment: "I sent the BLACKHOLE community to
> > upstream-X and to upstream-Y, and I got different results. How come?"
> >
>
> Doesn't this presuppose that the community ends up making some action
> happen by default? the draft skips talking about default-action (vendor
> enforced action), and I think leaves the implementation up to the
> provider/operator.
>
> So... in the end your providerX may accept BLACKHOLE and 'blackhole' or
> they may just 'drop on output port'. While providerY may not do anything
> with BLACKHOLE, just because they don't believe in that sort of magic.
>
> This is the same situation as we have today: "I sent 7018:666, nothing
> happened?" "Oh! you forgot to do the setup-dance with 7018..."
> (s/7018/ANY/).
Hi Chris,
I'm not presupposing any default action (and I agree router vendors
should not attempt any default action in this regard).
Here's the comparison I think should be made:
Today anyone who wants to use RTBH has a number of things they need to
know about their providers' implementations:
- is RTBH supported? if so:
- what signaling community is used?
- in-band or special ebgp-multihop session?
- host-route only, or something different?
- is any pre-arrangement necessary, and has it been taken care of?
- will a maximum duration be enforced?
If this draft proceeds and is successful in standardizing a signaling
community, only one item has been removed from that list. That
doesn't seem like a big win to me.
Thanks.
Jay B.
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
