Re: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route scope control to BCP

> 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
> [email protected] or [email protected] 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.