Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019) -

"Susan Hares" <> Fri, 25 October 2019 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F67120128 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 07:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.246
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.246 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WrdM0N2fcvSc for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 07:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F553120105 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 07:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'idr wg' <>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:51:21 -0400
Message-ID: <00f401d58b43$aa968ac0$ffc3a040$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F5_01D58B22.23875BC0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdWLQaI/WXcsqjEDROatNbmYd62yMQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 191023-2, 10/23/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019) -
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:51:25 -0000



The WG Adoption call for daft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt need additional
support for adoption.   I encourage the authors to make sure those wishing
to make comments on this draft to do so over the weekend. 


This draft deploys the passing of BGP policy in a new AFI/SAFI and Wide
communities.   At this point, my understanding from the email is that
mechanisms eases the configuration burden in some networks.    


Are there any operators who are concerned that this mechanism (AFI/SAFI +
Wide Communities), contains information that will leak into their network by
accident?   Or will the AFI/SAFI + WIDE communities provide a clear
delineation between a group of networks who support this feature and those
who do not. 


Thank you, Sue Hares