On 11/2/19 9:57 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > Yes, the inverse can be an issue as well. We can add that as a > milestone! Perhaps: > > "Document impact of selectively announcing de-aggregated routes in the > global routing system." I would think more along the lines of: "Document impact of selectively announcing more specific routes to the global routing system." > It could be helpful to come up with a fancy nickname for this type of > issue, in the spirit of how "BGP Wedgies" (RFC 4264) is a nice short > name for a complex issue. > > Maybe "BGP Deaggregation Slopping" as a working title? Or "Scenic BGP Deaggregation", or "BGP Globetrotting", or "BGP Castaways". If anything a connotation with the sea and/or submarine cables would be appropriate, I think! > In any regard, will you take a lead to produce a draft? :) Yes.. and I will also try to involve some others whom I know have run into this problem operationally.
Best regards, Martijn _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
