+1 to change - good catch by Ignas. Sue
-----Original Message----- From: GROW [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Job Snijders Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 10:43 AM To: Ignas Bagdonas Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [GROW] WGLC draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject - ends 3/19/2017 (mar 19) On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:06:13PM +0000, Ignas Bagdonas wrote: > Fully support. Speaking as an operator, this is the right thing to do, > and it has been deployed as a standard practice either natively if > implementations do support this now or as an initial policy > preconfiguration if it is not yet supported. > > A small nit on the clarity of the applicability to al address families > - the way how it is worded now seems to assume global and VPN address > families only. What about explicitly requiring all address families > active on the session to be affected by this? > > OLD: > This specification intends to improve this situation by requiring the > explicit configuration of a BGP import and export policy for any > External BGP (EBGP) session such as customers, peers, or > confederation boundaries in a base router or VPN instances. > > NEW: > This specification intends to improve this situation by requiring the > explicit configuration of a BGP import and export policy for any > External BGP (EBGP) session such as customers, peers, or > confederation boundaries for all enabled address families. I'd like to incorporate your suggestion, I agree it adds clarity. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
