> My take is that if existing RFC8955 does not provide a sufficient > placeholder to propagate SAV data it should be transported outside of > BGP entirely.
I would prefer this information be transported outside BGP entirely, but _if_ it's going to be transported in BGP, please let's do it in a way that reduces the load on existing BGP implementations to a minimum. The amount of churn represented by this kind of work is probably going to warrant some new way of managing this information anyway. 😊 /r _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
