On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Jay Borkenhagen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > ok, it's simpler, perhaps to know that you send XXX:YYY regardless, right? For folk that have more than one upstream there are a slew of operators who are less skilled at bgp policy than you or me... or (probably) most of grow@. So making the multi-headed decision of: for peer X xxx:yyy for peer Y aaa:bbb for peer z ccc:ddd could be more problematic. I think the aim is to just simplify that part, how you transport the announcement (same bgp endpoint, new endpoint, hosts only?) isn't a goal of the draft, and wouldn't (I think) be a goal for GROW to standardize. All this said, there's no reason that an operator needs to agree to use the 'well known' standard either.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
