Hi Sriram,
On 03/10, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote on 10/03/2022 03:31:
[...]
> > The ASPA verification draft treats the relationship of RS to
> > RS-client as similar to that of Provider to Customer. Seems
> > reasonable? The AS of an RS client includes the RS's AS in
Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote on 10/03/2022 03:31:
Nick and all,
Thank you. What you all shared/discussed is very useful info.
Almost all RS's are transparent these days. Usually IXPs go to
lengths to ensure that the RS ASN doesn't appear in the AS path.
Good to know that. Well, that
Hello Jeffrey,
Thanks for your comments, some answers inline:
On 7/3/22, 22:32, "Jeffrey Haas" wrote:
Camilo,
A few quick notes from an eyeball review of the draft:
You probably care about what's going on for the tcp yang module. I've
prodded that item in a separate response.
Thanks Tim!
We will consider your points for next version, together with the
recommendations from Jeffrey.
Camilo
From: "Tim Evens (tievens)"
Date: Monday, 7 March 2022 at 19:05
To: Camilo Cardona , Camilo Cardona
Cc: "grow-cha...@ietf.org" , "grow@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [GROW]
Job and Chris:
[WG chair hat on]
Did you receive my request on behalf of IDR WG on
VPN Prefix limits on the grow email list?
Will you be asking this question at IETF 113?
[WG chair hat off]
[WG participant hat on]
I'm personally pleased to see an inbound prefix limit
Proposal at IDR.
Hi all,
Here is the current draft GROW @ IETF 113 agenda:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/agenda-113-grow-00.txt
Please let the chairs know if you'd also like to contribute agenda items.
Kind regards,
Job & Chris
___
