Christopher Morrow writes: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Jay Borkenhagen <j...@braeburn.org> wrote: > > > confusion and disappointment: "I sent the BLACKHOLE community to > > upstream-X and to upstream-Y, and I got different results. How come?" > > > > Doesn't this presuppose that the community ends up making some action > happen by default? the draft skips talking about default-action (vendor > enforced action), and I think leaves the implementation up to the > provider/operator. > > So... in the end your providerX may accept BLACKHOLE and 'blackhole' or > they may just 'drop on output port'. While providerY may not do anything > with BLACKHOLE, just because they don't believe in that sort of magic. > > This is the same situation as we have today: "I sent 7018:666, nothing > happened?" "Oh! you forgot to do the setup-dance with 7018..." > (s/7018/ANY/).
Hi Chris, I'm not presupposing any default action (and I agree router vendors should not attempt any default action in this regard). Here's the comparison I think should be made: Today anyone who wants to use RTBH has a number of things they need to know about their providers' implementations: - is RTBH supported? if so: - what signaling community is used? - in-band or special ebgp-multihop session? - host-route only, or something different? - is any pre-arrangement necessary, and has it been taken care of? - will a maximum duration be enforced? If this draft proceeds and is successful in standardizing a signaling community, only one item has been removed from that list. That doesn't seem like a big win to me. Thanks. Jay B. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow