Hi Brian, Well your idea of not sending more specifics downstream would be really a cool one if all Tier 1s would fully mesh with each other and exchange those more specifics. Then indeed yes there would be no reason to send those downstream.
But I am afraid this is not yet the reality we face. Thx, R. On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 3:49 AM Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 6:43 AM Christopher Morrow < > christopher.mor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Where does it no longer make sense to deaggregate? Isn't that a bunch >> related to what problem the initial announcement is trying to solve? >> >> > I just realized this question might not have had an answer, or not the > following answer at least: > > Deaggregates should only go "upstream", to transit providers (and their > transit providers). > > It might be possible to apply restrictions to achieve this goal, using > mechanisms made available when the "route leaks mitigation" draft gets > adopted (and deployed). > > I believe it should be possible to tag the deaggregates differently than > the aggregate itself, to differentially propagate/filter them (and prevent > the deaggregates from going to peers or customers). > > Or, it might be something that requires an additional community, maybe add > to the mitigation draft once adopted. > > Brian (co-author on the mitigations draft) >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
