Hi Brian,
The desired outcome is that sender/receiver _negotiate_ what is or is not to be
sent,
and the protocol merely enforces what has been agreed upon. The automatic
enforcement
of this high-level policy, is what stops route leaks from being initiated or
propagated.
The policy is still determined by the operators at both ends of a peering
session.
Just like the IP addresses and ASNs, the policies have to match for BGP session
establishment.
Unilateral misconfiguration (whether by accident or deliberate act), which
could have introduced
or propagated route leaks, are prevented.
I have read your drafts reg route leaks however I would like to clarify
one very basic question.
When any provider creates a BGP peering relation to his customer it is a
common best practice among most if not all ISPs that there is a strict
BGP policy applied over the session to make sure only legitimate
customer blocks are advertised.
If such policy would be required to be share one could use prefix ORF.
With this in mind I am really not clear what practical vs theoretical
problems you are attempting to solve ?
Best regards,
R.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
