Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

: 14 August 2019 08:53 To: melch...@aelmans.eu Cc: grow@ietf.org Subject: Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix I support WG adoption of this draft. I also support the suggestion regarding using Hard Reset for outbound maximum prefix limits. ​ - Torunn

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

[GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix To: Melchior Aelmans mailto:melch...@aelmans.eu>> Cc: mailto:grow@ietf.org>> I support WG adoption Op 25 jul. 2019, om 14:00 heeft Melchior Aelmans mailto:melch...@aelmans.eu>> het volgende geschreven: Hi WG, We would like to

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

Yes thx both to Bruno and Jakob to bring the hard CEASE option as solution. Subject draft is addressed. But we all need to watch for similar assumptions and consequences when persistent bgp feature is enabled. Best, R. On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 03:21 Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote: > In response to

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 01:21:04AM +, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote: > In response to Robert's point on the IDR list related to > draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence: If BGP session terminates > unexpectedly - say when max prefix is reached - it is quite unclear on > the operational consequences of s

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

In response to Robert's point on the IDR list related to draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence: If BGP session terminates unexpectedly - say when max prefix is reached - it is quite unclear on the operational consequences of such duet of features enabled together. may I suggest that response to the

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

I support WG adoption > Op 25 jul. 2019, om 14:00 heeft Melchior Aelmans het > volgende geschreven: > > Hi WG, > > We would like to request WG adoption for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sa-grow-maxprefix/ > > > Thanks, >

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

> 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, 2

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

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 specific

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

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 i

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

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 and

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

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 l

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

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 b

Re: [GROW] Request WG Adoption for draft-sa-grow-maxprefix

All, 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 between vendors. But one requirement when we are talking about outbound prefix limit is which prefixes should be se