Thomas, On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:57:18PM +0000, Thomas Mangin wrote: > As I am not pushing for an alternate draft,
As mentioned on IDR, part of the reason to issue the draft was to strike up discussion among implementors. This is a serious operational problem. > would you agree that there is no need to test feature on EBGP links and that > this attribute should therefore be limited to iBGP to protect the innocents ? iBGP is no protection. To give an example, code point 30 was squatted on for a feature that wasn't enabled on impacted routers. Large communities, per IANA assignment, tried to utilize it. Once routes carrying LCs hit those routers as transit nodes, the routes were treated as withdraw due to being "malformed" per RFC 7606. Some features only make sense in eBGP contexts and we need to similarly make some accommodation for development work there as well. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
