On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Christopher Morrow < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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 > oops, and I updated the xml here: < https://github.com/morrowc/grow-docs/commit/2dadb7b1bd21bafc69364769cc5c1c916019464f > the authors can copy/paste/merge/git-foo it I expect? if they agree with the changes, which seemed ok to me. oh, the authors have a better place, I'll send in that direction momentarily.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
