> If closer to the time of publication of this draft there is another standard that may impact decisions here, yes that would be prudent to consider.
IMHO even if such standard appears *after* publication of this draft having that in apriori would be a pure plus :) Cheers, R. On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 7:58 PM Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 13:54 Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > >> Hello Job, >> >> You'll >>> notice from the draft that once the limit is reached a CEASE >>> Notification is sent; so I am not sure if the priority truly matters in >>> context of tearing down the session. >>> >> >> And I am not sure if CEASE matters in the context of BGP Persistence >> efforts :) >> > > Good feedback. I’ll have to rely on the GROW and IDR WGs to help > understand how we view CEASE in this context and what must be done. > > >> If you have specific suggestions what text and considerations should be >>> added to the draft I would welcome that. >>> >> >> I would suggest to just add a sentence that the actual number of prefixes >> sent >> without warning or error (session drop) should be a smallest number of >> prefixes >> either which were locally configured or pushed from the peer. >> > > > If closer to the time of publication of this draft there is another > standard that may impact decisions here, yes that would be prudent to > consider. > > Kind regards, > > Job > >>
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
