On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 05:23:38PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:07:19AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 05:10:01PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Am I correct to understand that the word 'discard' has very specific > > meaning in this context? Does "discard" mean "forbidden to store in > > memory"? > > Discard traditionally means "to throw away". To put into familiar context, > "keep none" with policy reject. > > If you're just looking for "you can't use this without import policy > specified", you want something along the lines of: > > In the absence of configured import policy, BGP routes are ineligible for > route selection. (RFC 4271, section 9.1.1.) >
This wording is consistent with what I want to have happen. (Fixing language in other IDs/RFCs is work for another day.) I cannot think of a better way of wording it, so my opinion is, "adopt this language". Support, BTW. BRian
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
