Hello Martin, thanks for the input! The text looks good, and I will integrate it.
With best regards, Tobias (Currently with higher RTT due to moving; sry) On Thu, 2026-02-26 at 14:28 +0100, Martin Pels wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > I just went through our earlier discussions and found two points in > section 4.1 that did not return in a generalized form in the 02 (and > later) version of the draft. > > I propose adding the following: > > * The AS_PATH for a received NLRI MUST NOT exceed the maximum > length > supported by the local router. > > * The number of BGP communities [RFC1997], extended BGP > communities > [RFC4360] and Large BGP communities [RFC8092] attached to a > received NLRI MUST NOT exceed the maximum supported by the > local router. > > And a nit in the abstract: > > "Due to this central nature, it is important to understand the > security > and reliability requirements that can and should be ensured to > prevent > accidental or intentional routing disturbances." > > ensured -> met > > Kind regards, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
