Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: bgp update destroying transit on redback routers ?
From: Rob Shakir <rjs () rob sh>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 07:55:29 +0000


On 1 Dec 2011, at 23:04, Warren Kumari wrote:

tp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-idr-as0-01 has been replaced with 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 -- which does include it.

Whilst we are on the subject of relevant drafts - it should be noted that situations like this provide significant 
motivation for the work presented in both [0] and [1] (full disclosure: I am the editor of [0]).  I'd really encourage 
the community to review both documents and comment on whether they provide benefit in this problem space.  I'm very 
happy to take feedback on the requirements draft [0] particularly - since this aimed to describe this problem from an 
operator perspective.

Essentially, until something is done in a more general sense in the protocol, we will continue to see threads  liked 
this one popping up every few months.

I'll post a further update to the nanog list when we have requested a working group last-call on the requirements draft 
asking for reviews.

Thanks for your time,
r.


[0]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-ops-reqs-for-bgp-error-handling-02
[1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-00



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]