You folks are headed in the right direction. I'll be happy wherever you end up.
Thanks! Spencer On Thursday, January 12, 2017, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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
