ternet-dra...@ietf.org writes:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations WG of the IETF.
>
> Title : Well-Known Community Policy Behavior
> Au
Jay B.
internet-dra...@ietf.org writes:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations WG of the IETF.
>
> Title : Well-Known Community Po
ternet-dra...@ietf.org writes:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations WG of the IETF.
>
> Title : Well-Known Community Policy Behavior
> Au
> > >> i did not realize this was going on. jay, who discovered it, was
> > >> surprised.
> > >
> > > NTT noticed this type of inconsistency between some vendors somewhere
> > > in July 2016. [...]
[...]
> I know of other carriers who are not interested in preserving any
> community
Distro cut *way* down.
Regarding the suggestion for "logging knobs":
- if it's just logging that a gshut action was taken, that's a local
implementation decision -- no need to mention it in the draft.
- if it's "Possibly raising alarms when something seems wrong", that
would be a bad idea.
David Farmer writes:
> I would prefer a normative RECOMMENDED, the rest of the sentence in
> RFC2119, just means you should explain the constraints on the alternatives.
> How about something like this;
>
> "The LOCAL_PREF value SHOULD be lower than any of the alternative
> paths. A
Thanks, Chris.
With the draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-11 that Bruno posted earlier today,
I fully support moving ahead with publication.
Jay B.
On 17-Aug-2017, Christopher Morrow writes:
> I agree the document is almost done, I think there's one
