On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:37:00PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > I've come to understand that even if the remote party does not support > gshut, at least in one direction there will be benefit (downpreffing of > routes received from the BGP neighbor which is about to be shut down).
This sort of "draining" behavior is pretty common when you can do it. And it's worth noting that most of what gshut needed was just a community people were willing to use for such a depref. > > Since the title of the draft is "session-culling" it feels somewhat > > out of scope to go more into detail on gshut, but a reference might be > > useful. > > Perhaps if the gshut draft is revived, a reference indeed is appropiate. > I may have been too soon in my dismissal. Ben Maddison aptly pointed out > that gshut is part of Ben's Current Practices. :-) Informational references say "go look at this time" not "you require this" (normative). You can refer to pretty much anything you want in informational without impacting publication. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
