> On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aret...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > My bigger issue with 9.1.1 is that it is the first step of the decision > process – the intent, as I understand it, is for the routes not to even reach > that point.
I’m not in agreement here as it’s well within the power of an implementation to provide a knob to circumvent these safety knobs. We can’t have people pretending it’s the early 90s anymore. We must have safe implementations and defaults. Are you saying that IOS-XR is non-compliant with 9.1.1 because it does not have “bgp unsafe-ebgp-policy” as the default? At what point does the Cisco implementation make that decision? We seem to be triangulating on where in the exact decision process people are considering a route feasible or ineligible, can you speak to your implementation? That may provide guidance in documenting the IOS-XR practice. - Jared _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
