it occurs to me that while this discussion is awesome, perhaps having it in a thread not about the adoption of an already adopted draft would be good :)
(sadly gmail won't let me change the subject :( ) On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Brian Dickson <[email protected] > wrote: > > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
