Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

Job Snijders wrote: > Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up? I don't think the draft is well specified in terms of its intended semantics. This is a problem with a standards track document, particularly one with big scary warnings in the security considerations section. It needs

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:22:44PM -0400, Jared Mauch: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:10 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Job Snijders wrote: > >> Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up? > > > > I don't think the draft is well specified in terms of its intended > > semantics.

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:10 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Job Snijders wrote: >> Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up? > > I don't think the draft is well specified in terms of its intended > semantics. This is a problem with a standards track document, >

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:54:30PM +0200, Job Snijders: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:46:15PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Job Snijders wrote: > > > Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to > > > implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

> The second major area of concern I have about this proposal is the > transitive nature of the bgp community. The issue is that the draft > specifies a mechanism to cause traffic to be dropped on the floor, > that the signaling mechanism is globally transitive in scope, and the > specific intent

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

Job Snijders wrote: > I believe this update addresses the concerns raised in this phase of the > document. yes, thanks, it addresses these concerns, and the document is a lot better as a result. The second major area of concern I have about this proposal is the transitive nature of the bgp

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 01:30:49PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > The second major area of concern I have about this proposal is the > transitive nature of the bgp community. I thought Section 3.2 provides enough detail on scoping routes tagged with BLACKHOLE, however with your concern and the

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

Job Snijders wrote: > Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to > implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic > for BLACKHOLE'ed prefixes? I would have said the opposite, i.e. that any traffic tagged with this prefix is dropped via e.g.

Re: [GROW] Last Call: (BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing) to Proposed Standard

On 6/29/16 1:46 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Job Snijders wrote: >> Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to >> implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic >> for BLACKHOLE'ed prefixes? > > I would have said the opposite, i.e. that any