On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:27:20AM +0000, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote: > Thanks, Job, for the responses. > > >I'd like to propose a different strategy and describe some background. > >Both of you mention per-peer flags or new per-route state flags, which > >in essence are updates to rfc4271, this feels like too heavy of a > >hammer. > > The flags/markings are local to the router. Does not require any rfc4271 > updates, IMO. > E.g. Origin validation (RFC 6811) marking is already implemented in commercial > routers and did not require rfc4271 update. > > >NEW2: > > "Software MUST discard any routes from an EBGP peer, if no import > > policy was configured." > > Sounds good to me.
I'll update the doc and incorporate this in -03. Thanks. > Additionally, should there be an alert generated for the network > operator. The discard of routes happening quietly (while operator > knows nothing about it) is not good. An alert is overkill imho, can't have a system spew 600,000 alerts because it rejected a full table feed. I think this will be very hard to capture in a spec. Some implementations remain silent (yeah not ideal), other implementations show a default policy (example: "REJECT") applied on a neighbor in "show neighbor xxx"-style commands if there is no policy configured. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
