On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Terry Manderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> > >>MUST vs SHOULD for this, I do think the MUST would be easy to handle. Is > >>this a problem in an RS situation? Probbaly not... on the RS, but on the > >>distant peer, it likely is hard(er) to deal with. I don't imagine many > >>folk prefix filter the RS session very > >> tightly only because memberships come/go and you may not always get > >>timely notice (I have no idea when people come/go at the IX's I connect > >>to). > >> > >>So, SHOULD makes some sense to me, at least in the RS peer/distant-peer > >>world. Surely for direct BGP peerings MUST is a better idea, I think. > >> > > > >I think then there is a difference here worth pointing out. It isn't a > >"one size fits all" approach and the nuances are important. > > > > > > > > > > > >can you propose some text that the authors could inject? > > > > Suggested text: > > BGP speakers in a direct peering relationship MUST only accept and honor > BGP announcements carrying the BLACKHOLE community if the announced > prefix is covered by a shorter prefix for which the neighboring > network is authorized to advertise. In topologies where a Route Server > or other distant-peer relationships, BGP speaker SHOULD accept and honor > BGP announcements under the same conditions. > > thanks! -chris
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
