Would it be possible to add a clause to mention that accepting + honouring bh prefixes is not mandatory? At the moment the text sort-of implies that it might be. Eg "although it is NOT REQUIRED for bgp speakers in a peering relationship to accept and honor BGP announcements carrying the BLACKHOLE community, they MUST only accept and honor BGP announcements carrying the BLACKHOLE community if the announced prefix is covered by..."
Or something to that effect. That sentence above is a bit clumsy so please feel free to mangle as appropriate. Nick Sent from my iWotsit. On 5 Aug 2016, at 18:46, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
