Re: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route scope control to BCP
Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net> Thu, 07 November 2002 18:10 UTC
Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04727 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:10:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 167D6912C2; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:13:15 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id DC043912C3; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:13:14 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE445912C2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:13:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B709C5DDF6; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:13:13 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from earthquake.proficient.net (fe0-0-access-1-sfo.proficient.net [65.209.247.5]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8815DDA6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:13:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from riga ([10.0.0.25]) by earthquake.proficient.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:13:07 -0800
Subject: Re: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route scope control to BCP
From: Justin Fletcher <jfletcher@proficient.net>
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: idr@merit.edu, ptomaine@shrubbery.net, Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <1079106364.20021104000240@psg.com>
References: <1079106364.20021104000240@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-4)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:13:03 -0800
Message-Id: <1036692784.2228.123.camel@riga>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2002 18:13:07.0452 (UTC) FILETIME=[529DF3C0:01C28689]
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> The IESG has received a request from the Prefix Taxonomy Ongoing > Measurement & Inter Network Experiment Working Group to consider NOPEER > community for BGP route scope control > <draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-00.txt> as a BCP. > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the > iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2002-11-17. I believe this should be considered as an experimental rather than a BCP. It does not document current practice and requires implementation by router vendors before it can be adopted into practice. Other issues: The community field should be previously assigned by IANA and defined in the document. There's a large motivation section, but no implementation section (what do I do with NOPEER if receive it?) The paragraph This approach allows an originator of a prefix to attach a commonly defined policy to a route prefix, indicate that a route should be re-advertised conditionally, based on the characteristics of the inter-AS connection. does not define the conditions under which a route should be re-advertised. Without such, I don't see a difference between NOPEER and NO-ADVERTISE. There should at least be references to RFC1771 and RFC1997. I'd like a clear definition of "bilateral inter-AS peering" early in the document. Best, Justin Fletcher Proficient Networks, Inc.
- Fwd: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route sc… Alex Zinin
- Re: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route sco… Justin Fletcher
- Re: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route sco… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route sco… Justin Fletcher