On 6/26/16 6:38 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> There has been no discussion on the GROW mailing list about having this
> document published as Standards Track rather than informational and it's
> coming as a surprise to see that this was only announced at IESG Last
> Call a couple of days ago. At the
> Nick Hilliard wrote :
> Personally - and I say this as an IXP operator who has had yet another
> week-end ruined due to prolonged DDoS problems on an IXP
> fabric - I don't think this is an appropriate document for standards track,
> or even for publication as an RFC. The reason for this
> is
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:31:17 +
joel jaeggli wrote:
> It's not clear to me how that would even work. assuming for the sake
> of arguement that the IXP by way of configured policy on the
> route-server adds this community to a prefix.
Here is some detail on how DE-CIX
On 6/26/16 7:43 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 03:23:53PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Job Snijders wrote:
>>> Follow-up question: without section 3.4 - would you still object?
>>
>> I don't think that IXPs should be mentioned anywhere in this document.
>> For the general case
Job Snijders wrote:
> I feel that this is not the appropiate forum to define what IXPs can,
> can't, should and shouldn't in context of legal enforcement agencies.
I wasn't suggesting it was. What I said was two things:
1. regarding everything except section 3.4: if two organisations decide
to
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 03:23:53PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Job Snijders wrote:
> > Follow-up question: without section 3.4 - would you still object?
>
> I don't think that IXPs should be mentioned anywhere in this document.
> For the general case of blackholing, an IXP is a clearing house
Job Snijders wrote:
> Follow-up question: without section 3.4 - would you still object?
I don't think that IXPs should be mentioned anywhere in this document.
For the general case of blackholing, an IXP is a clearing house so
should not get involved in the business of dropping its participants'
Dear Nick,
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 02:38:33PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> The IESG wrote:
> > The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
> > (grow) to consider the following document:
> > - 'BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing'
> >as Proposed Standard
> >
> >
The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
> (grow) to consider the following document:
> - 'BLACKHOLE BGP Community for Blackholing'
>as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments