Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:38:42AM -0400, John G. Scudder wrote:
> Actually given the other rules we've discussed I don't see where  
> there's potential for loops even absent the ACCEPT_OWN community,  
> which is why I referred to it as "belt-and-suspenders".  If you can  
> think of a specific loop scenario, I'd be interested to hear it.

My concern has always been if this mechanism is inadvertantly applied to
a box that doesn't have "multiple contexts".  While I think we can both
agree that if people follow the spec (presuming a good spec) that this
shouldn't be an issue I think we've both seen poor implementations and
the hazards surrounding such.  This seems more likely in the case where
someone tries to apply this outside of a VPN context.

> Seems like an editorial rather than normative change -- essentially  
> emphasizing that the behavior is controlled by configuration and  
> defaults off.  As such, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

Then I suspect we've converged.  I'm looking forward to the next
revision.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr