Hi, just reading your draft, a few remarks, speaking as a private internet citizen:
"If a route server client announces a prefix tagged with both the NO_EXPORT and NO_EXPORT_VIA_RS communities to a route server, the route server MUST ignore the NO_EXPORT community," --> that means that NO_EXPORT_VIA_RS is "stronger" then NO_EXPORT and actually changes the meaning of NO_EXPORT. I know that users make stupid mistakes and this should perhaps cover the mistake of setting both, but IMHO with NO_EXPORT being much older and really well understood and used, I think NO_EXPORT should take precedence. (IMHO NO_EXPORT should be interpreted, and never passed through, independent of a router or a route server is used) My first idea when reading this was why not make it general, why limit the community to route servers and not have a "SET_NO_EXPORT" community which directs the next hop AS to set NO_EXPORT? ( I already sent this email to Nick and his answer that its limited to RS because otherwise some kind of TTL needs to be implemented makes sense) cheers, Wolfgang > On 9. Oct 2017, at 16:02, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > > New ID submission, as below. This is to solve a real world problem. > > Comments welcome. > > Nick > > internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: >> A new version of I-D, draft-hilliard-grow-no-export-via-rs-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Nick Hilliard and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-hilliard-grow-no-export-via-rs -- Wolfgang Tremmel Phone +49 69 1730902 26 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | Mobile +49 171 8600 816 | wolfgang.trem...@de-cix.net Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135 DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
