Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:32:49PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern:
> (the authors would not have written it if no one wanted it.)

eh, that might not be a valid argument :)

> Also, one of the arguments for doing this in the router is that you can 
> get more timely and precise correlation.  Except that for geolocation of 
> address blocks, upstream correlation seems to be quite sufficiently 
> stable and precise.  NLRI may come and go.  I fone has geo-information, 
> it is unlikely to change.

This may have been answered, but in case not or un-clear; what I and I
believe others refer to here as geo location, is different from what you
and randy are talking about in the sense of the IETF's prefixes.  I do not
always care about that location.

I am placing my own marks on routes - where I hear them; region, country,
metro, relationship with the neighbor, etc.  Though it is not the whole
story, this is typically of more interest to me.

If a neighbor AS does similarly and sends them to me, I could make use of
them.  However, as you observed, these are all choices local to the AS -
the values, whether to send them, etc.  There is definitely a maintenance
cost associate with using this data and a question of accuracy.

Other's comments about accuracy and burden of external enrichment are valid.
Whether this particular additional resolution is much of a burden on routers,
I suspect not, but I am not an implementer.

Authors: please use a spell checker.  Also seems a few of the reference
links are broken.

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to