Job Snijders wrote: > Maybe I am misunderstanding the intention of your proposed change - can > you elaborate? Are you sure that the problem case you describe isn't > already covered by the existing text?
The intention is to document that if there is an existing policy to filter at max prefix length N, then the operator needs to make sure that when they start accepting BH-tagged prefixes which might have arbitrary lengths, that they don't accidentally break their existing policy of rejecting e.g. > /24 or /48 or whatever. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
