Hi Stavros,
On 18/04/2024 11:32, Stavros Konstantaras wrote:
Hi Martin, Jeff and colleagues.
After some internal discussion, we have submitted the -02 version of the
draft, you can find it available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms>
In short we adopted your recommedations and we do believe that IXP Route
Servers should not scrub completely the BGP Extendend communities as
this might be a useful feature for few peers signaling each-other.
I found one grammar nit:
"Allow the rest of the BGP Extended Communities transit
transparently through the Route Servers."
should be
"Allow the rest of the BGP Extended Communities to transit
transparently through the Route Servers."
However, we do believe that BGP Extendend communities related to L3VPNs
(route targets) should not be leaked to the Route Servers and they don’t
have valid place in Multilateral Peering. This is depicted in section **
4.
Please have a reading and let us know what do you believe after these
modifications.
Looks acceptable to me.
What are your thoughts on having the document update RFC7948, section 4.6.1?
Kind regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
