On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > [ first, i do not use route serves (because of the data/control non- > congruence), so my opinion here is worth even less than it normally > is. ] > >> An ixp route-server is not a transit provider, all of the nexthops >> exposed are in fact peers. So no I do not consider such a device an >> "upstream" it exists to service the policy needs of the peers on the >> fabric rather than that of the exchange operator. > > to repeat my previous; those policy needs might vary across ix members. > some may want the ix to enforce origin validation for them, some may > not. those exchanges which offer validation today offer the choice. i > think that is the right thing; let the member make the choice at set-up > with the route server.
I think RSs should do RPKI by default and allow for two behaviors: 1) Drop (default) 2) Add ext-community as this draft suggests (upon request) Regards -- Marco _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
