Hi Job et al, > On 26 Jun 2015, at 19:13, Job Snijders <j...@instituut.net> wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:51:40PM +0000, Thomas King wrote: >> we submitted this document in order to unify and simplify triggering >> blackholing at IXPs. We propose to define a well-known BGP community >> for this. >> >> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > In every single RBTH implementation I know of (on the operator side, not > the IXP RS side), NO_EXPORT is added to routes which have passed the IRR > filters and are requested to be blackholed.
so, do you propose that the IXP RS MUST add a NO_EXPORT to the route that passed the IRR filters and which is requested to be blackholed? This is completely fine with me. > Another remark, should you decide to rename BLACKHOLEIXP to just > BLACKHOLE, you might want to replace the references to "IXP" throughout > the document and make it more general. I am not sure if a more general approach (= ISP / transit environment) makes lots of sense given RFC 3882. Best regards, Thomas
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
