Hi,
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:48:51AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > There is one item I don't understand here:
> >
> > o Software MUST provide protection from internal failures preventing
> > the advertisement and acceptance of routes
> >
> > what does that mean (in other words "more ve
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 4:37 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:18:55PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> I plan on covering this briefly in the GROW meeting today and uploaded the
>> revised text that has been sitting in my output queue since August.
>>
>> This is basically codifying
On 02/11/2015 04:18, Jared Mauch wrote:
> I plan on covering this briefly in the GROW meeting today and uploaded
> the revised text that has been sitting in my output queue since August.
>
> This is basically codifying the fact that you MUST NOT default to "bgp
> unsafe-ebgp-policy” for any BGP sp
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:18:55PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> I plan on covering this briefly in the GROW meeting today and uploaded the
> revised text that has been sitting in my output queue since August.
>
> This is basically codifying the fact that you MUST NOT default to "bgp
> unsafe
I plan on covering this briefly in the GROW meeting today and uploaded the
revised text that has been sitting in my output queue since August.
This is basically codifying the fact that you MUST NOT default to "bgp
unsafe-ebgp-policy” for any BGP speaking device.
- Jared
