>> Note that BGPsec update messages can be quite large, therefore any >> BGPsec speaker announcing the capability to receive BGPsec messages >> SHOULD also announce support for the capability to receive BGP >> extended messages [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages]. >> >> isn't a MUST, but Section 7 explains this >> >> In Section 2.2, is was stated that a BGPsec speaker SHOULD announce >> support for the capability to receive BGP extended messages. Lack of >> negotiation of this capability is not expected to pose a problem in >> the early years of BGPsec deployment. However, as BGPsec is deployed >> more and more, the BGPsec update messages would grow in size and some >> messages may be dropped due to their size exceeding the current 4K >> bytes limit. Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that all BGPsec >> speakers negotiate the extended message capability within a >> reasonable period of time after initial deployment of BGPsec.
how about just saying A router announcing the capability to send or to receive BGPsec updates MUST also announce the capability to send and receive BGP extended messages [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages]. and call it a day? randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
