On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 05:16:27PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 02:49:55PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> > My recommendation to BGP implementers would be to implement all
> > three types of prefix limits. My recommendation to operators is to
> > configure both pre-policy
I support adoption as an upcoming co-author.
Thanks,
Thomas
From: GROW On Behalf Of Paolo Lucente
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 8:06 PM
To: grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org
Subject: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-lucente-bmp-tlv
Dear GROWers,
We would like to request WG adoption for
Support the adoption of this draft.
Shunwan
From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paolo Lucente
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 2:06 AM
To: grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org
Subject: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-lucente-bmp-tlv
Dear GROWers,
We would like to request WG
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 02:49:55PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> Thank you for your questions.
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 02:43:38PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > I would like to raise three points in respect to this draft:
> >
> > Point 3:
> >
> > For inbound prefix
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 13:54 Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hello Job,
>
> You'll
>> notice from the draft that once the limit is reached a CEASE
>> Notification is sent; so I am not sure if the priority truly matters in
>> context of tearing down the session.
>>
>
> And I am not sure if CEASE matters
Hello Job,
You'll
> notice from the draft that once the limit is reached a CEASE
> Notification is sent; so I am not sure if the priority truly matters in
> context of tearing down the session.
>
And I am not sure if CEASE matters in the context of BGP Persistence
efforts :)
If you have
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 : Methods for Detection and Mitigation of BGP Route
Leaks
Authors : Kotikalapudi Sriram
> If closer to the time of publication of this draft there is another
standard that may impact decisions here, yes that would be prudent to
consider.
IMHO even if such standard appears *after* publication of this draft
having that in apriori would be a pure plus :)
Cheers,
R.
On Fri, Jul 26,
Dear Robert,
Thank you for your questions.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 02:43:38PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> I would like to raise three points in respect to this draft:
>
> Point 1:
>
> The topic of outbound prefix limit is not new :) It has been discussed
> number of times within vendors and
Dear WG,
This document of route leak detection using communities seems to address
all unresolved issues from the previous versions.
We believe that the proposed solution can be easily adopted by the ISPs
thus reducing the number of route leaks that become globally propagated.
There is one
I also support publication.
Thanks
Acee
From: Idr on behalf of Jeff Tantsura
Date: Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 5:49 PM
To: IDR List , Susan Hares
Cc: "grow@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication
(bs) - draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04.txt (7/9
11 matches
Mail list logo
