On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:31:12AM -0700, Stephen Farrell wrote: > (1) I agree with the points raised in IETF LC that the > transitive nature of this proposal has dangers that may > outweigh its utility. Was there discussion in the WG about > potential solutions that do not have the transitivity > property? If so, can you point me at those? If not, is > there a reason to think no such solution is feasible? (I > suspect the answer may be "no" which is the main reason I > plan to move to an abstain ballot.)
This mechanism exists within the existing ecosystem of RFC 1997 communities. These communities control a significant amount of routing behavior and are commonly set by upstream routers, perhaps from a different AS, attempting to influence behavior or provide information to downstream ASes. Common operational practices include removing undesirable communities at one's AS border. While these practices are not written about in the RFC series, they're well understood. My suggestion is to proceed with the knowledge that this is a known operational behavior as are the underlying security considerations. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
