Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 05:39:12PM +0200, Job Snijders: > > As for my requirements, I'm considering that our ASes have the > > knowledge of the backup path. Hence I don't need for the extra > > coverage. Regarding the extra cost, I agree that one can hardly > > consider this unacceptable since this is the current behavior. > > > > TL;DR: it's a tradeoff between 2 secondary objectives: > > - reducing Internet churned (compared to today) > > - improving the g-shut coverage when the AS does not know the backup path > > + improve visibility into the operation
+1 for that; and allows it to (possibly) enter the records of routeviews. & allows other ASes beyond the receiver to take action - even if the receiver does not have an alternate path ... which imiho ends this discussion about removing the community. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
