I am willing to help either way. ------------------- Cheers, Rick
Experiences not things. On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 07:16:17AM -0500, Rick Casarez wrote: > > This is interesting since it is definitely a best common practice for > > operators to do points 1 and 3 on your list. Is the intention of this > > document to enforce a BCP by allowing operators to point to a draft/RFC > or > > did you want to change how BGP works? > > BCPs for operators exist (RFC7454 for a start). > > Implementations need to change, to "fail safe" - if not configured to do > so, neither accept nor send BGP prefixes on eBGP sessions. > > [..] > > If you just want to document a BCP in draft form (eventually RFC) to use > it > > as a mechanism to force vendors to change their BGP code/daemons it might > > work. Some vendors will have no issue conforming or adding it to their > road > > map. Although most can point to the fact it is really just a BCP draft > and > > ignore it unless there is a big surge in demand for conformance from > their > > customers. After all we all know some vendors who do not conform to RFCs. > > > > If you want to change how BGP is implemented, and be able to more > > forcefully push this change to vendors, then Robert is correct and 4271 > > would need to be updated. > > > > So I guess I would ask you: which way did you want to go? > > If this is what it takes, updating 4271 sounds like a plan. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
