[Idr] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)

["Benoit Claise" <[e-mail]>]

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>From an operational point of view, when an ISP wants to go change from
bilateral interconnections to the multilateral interconnection within one
IXP, is this correct to say that all bilateral interconnections should be
removed?
So that basically the ISP must chose between the two models, and not
combined them? If this is the case, it should be mentioned.
I thought it was clear to me until I saw figure 1: The dotted line is the
IXP or the IXP Route Server?
At first glance, I thought that it was the IXP and that AS1 was connected
to the IXP Route Server while still having a bilateral connection with
AS4.
I hope now that the dotted line is the IXP Route Server, otherwise I've
confused.