I understand that GROW is specific to Global Routing Operations at the current
time. Is the intention of the new charter to address BGP as a protocol when
explicitly dealing with routing state for standalone or inter-connected ... or
is the scope expanded to include BGP as it is currently
+1
From: GROW On Behalf Of Job Snijders
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 2:37 PM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum ; grow@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] Limiting AS path length?
Limiting the AS_PATH length - from an IETF RFC publication process in context
of providing operational
+1..
VRF-Limit and Session Limit used together to protect a router.. VRF Limit is
imposed such that multiple sessions for a given VPN customers cannot overflow
due to the aggregate number of routes coming over all sessions for said VPN.
Jim Uttaro
From: GROW On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent:
Fred,
Took a read on the draft.. A few comments below..
First my understanding of this solution is that is BGP
underlay, BGP Overlay.. Is this correct? If so, what is the ask in Section 6
last paragraph? If it is to create multiple instances of BGP would that be
Interesting discussion, coming from the VPN space the selection of an AS as a
global or regional value has been a long discussion.. For better or worse AS
value per region forces a different paradigm than AS per global.. In the VPN
space we take great pains to not affect the AS or AS-Path at is
Russ,
Hmmm, I don't think this is a consistent message.. When I attempted to
give people rope i.e BGP Persistence IETF chairs felt that this was too much
rope ?? IMO it takes very little rope to hang oneself so, let's be consistent
as a starting point...
Jim Uttaro
-Original
Rob,
Comments In-Line..
Thanks,
Jim Uttaro
-Original Message-
From: Rob Shakir [mailto:r...@rob.sh]
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:10 AM
To: UTTARO, JAMES
Cc: 'grow@ietf.org'; 'idr wg'
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-grow-ops-reqs-for-bgp-error-handling-04
Hi Jim,
Further
Rob,
Comments In-Line...
Thanks,
Jim Uttaro
-Original Message-
From: Rob Shakir [mailto:r...@rob.sh]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 6:39 PM
To: UTTARO, JAMES
Cc: 'grow@ietf.org'; 'idr wg'
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-grow-ops-reqs-for-bgp-error-handling-04
Hi Jim,
Thanks
Rob,
Following find my comments..
Thanks,
Jim Uttaro
General Comment,
From a philosophical perspective I agree with the goals of this draft but I do
not agree with an approach that maintains a session in the face of a failure
in the machinery. This is a bottom up approach
+1..
Jim Uttaro
From: Enke Chen [mailto:enkec...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 2:00 PM
To: rob...@raszuk.net
Cc: i...@ietf.org List; grow@ietf.org; UTTARO, JAMES; Enke Chen
Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: [GROW]
draft-ietf-grow-ops-reqs-for-bgp-error-handling-04
Hi, folks:
It might help
o Peer Distinguisher (8 bytes): Routers today can have multiple
instances (example L3VPNs). This field is present to distinguish
peers that belong to one address domain from the other.
If the peer is a Global Instance Peer, this field is zero
filled. If the peer is a
-Original Message-
From: grow-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:43 AM
To: Shane Amante
Cc: grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] RR reflection to clients
On 27 mrt 2009, at 3:43, Shane Amante wrote:
12 matches
Mail list logo
