On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 05:10:01PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > Brian, Sriram, others, > > 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. > > I'd prefer to make the document compatible with existing deployments of > software which is already compliant with the spirit of this document. > > OLD: > Software MUST mark any routes from an EBGP peer as 'invalid' in the > Adj-RIB-In, if no import policy was configured. > > NEW: > Software MUST consider any routes from an EBGP peer as invalid, if > no import policy was configured. > > NEW2: > "Software MUST discard any routes from an EBGP peer, if no import > policy was configured."
I rather object to NEW2 and, if included, withdraw any support of this draft. A fundamental issue with this behavior is that it dumps routes that would have to be recovered via expensive refresh. If any implementation wants to do this, I don't object, but it shouldn't be mandatory. FWIW, I still haven't evaluated our own software under the prior version of the draft, but think it's a generally good idea. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
