Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

["i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

I completely agree that one should be able to filter LC's, but please
treat that filtering the way RFC1997 already does today and leave the
policy of what (not) to filter up to the operators instead of trying to
hard-code policy into the protocol. That is what I said, nothing more,
nothing less.

Brian has provided an excellent answer to your question, so please
consider this as my +1 for his message.

Best regards,
Martijn

On 10/21/2016 09:51 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>     Please let operators worry about their own filtering policies (or
>     lack thereof) and leave such recommendations to the BCP/GROW document.
>
> ​This is IETF WG and I find such comment inappropriate. This
> discussion is about extending BGP protocol and we all should be
> worried how to apply effective policy on something which is being
> defined here. 
>
> So triggered by the above let me ask a very simple question. You and
> others expressed very clearly that LCs should traverse N-ASes and be
> executed somewhere remotely. Great.
>
> Let's also assume that you talk to everyone in the path and convince
> them to let your LC go through. 
>
> Question: 
>
> If you choose to inject LC in the format TARGET_ASN:ACTION:PARAMETER
> based on what field is anyone in the BGP propagation path supposed to
> let's your LCs go and stop all other 1000s of LCs injected by anyone
> else ? 
>
> Today RFC1997 don't go far as they have no way to apply per their
> originator permit or deny statements. 
>
> Thx,
> R.