Tore Anderson wrote: > In other words: in my opinion, BGP session culling should be considered > a BCP even in situations where link state signaling and/or BFD is used. > IP-transit providers should perform culling towards their customers > ahead of maintenance works. Direct peers, likewise.
probably not much need if bfd is used because that would operate route-to-router. Link state signaling is problematic because it's not necessarily transferred to all the devices that need to see the link state changes. > IXPs aren't at all special regarding the fundamental need for session > culling, only in the method by which it is accomplished (i.e., using > layer-2 ACLs). Correct, but for direct peers over PNIs, etc, the operator will usually have control over the bgp session. What we're talking about here is a situation where there is an intermediate operator which has no direct admin control over bgp sessions. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
