Re: Last Call: NOPEER community for BGP route scope control to BCP
Pekka Savola <[email protected]> Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:46:40 +0200 (EET)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ptomaine,gmane.ietf.idr |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7 Nov 2002, Justin Fletcher wrote: > > 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. Actually, I don't think this requires _anything_ from router vendors. Taking this into use is, of course, a bit easier if there's something in the routers, but I believe the "promise" of the mechanism is just to specify how to use a new well-known community. Well, seeing that there are different assumptions on this, I believe text should be clarified a bit (one way or the other). > 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?) Do you think example route-map statements are necessary? > 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. A route-map is quite an explicit condition. > There should at least be references to RFC1771 and RFC1997. Agreed. > I'd like a clear definition of "bilateral inter-AS peering" > early in the document. Agreed. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords