> Nick Hilliard wrote :
> I would have said the opposite, i.e. that any traffic tagged with this prefix
> is dropped via e.g. null0
> or martian mechanisms / etc. But it definitely needs to be defined because at
> the moment it's ambiguous.
> Ambiguity is fine when it's your own network, but not
> The second major area of concern I have about this proposal is the
> transitive nature of the bgp community. The issue is that the draft
> specifies a mechanism to cause traffic to be dropped on the floor,
> that the signaling mechanism is globally transitive in scope, and the
> specific intent
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:59 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 6/29/16 1:46 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > Job Snijders wrote:
> >> Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to
> >> implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic
> >> for BLACKHOLE'ed p
Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:22:44PM -0400, Jared Mauch:
> > On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:10 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > Job Snijders wrote:
> >> Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up?
> >
> > I don't think the draft is well specified in terms of its intended
> > semantics. This is a problem
Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:54:30PM +0200, Job Snijders:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:46:15PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > Job Snijders wrote:
> > > Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to
> > > implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic
>
Hi David,
Thank you for your feedback.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:23:23PM -0500, David Farmer wrote:
> > Range Registration Procedures
> > 0x-0x8000 First Come First Served
> > 0x8001-0x Standards Action
>
> And given that the code point that is being defined is 0xF
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 11:47 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 6/26/16 6:38 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > There has been no discussion on the GROW mailing list about having this
> > document published as Standards Track rather than informational and it's
> > coming as a surprise to see that this was o
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:10 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> Job Snijders wrote:
>> Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up?
>
> I don't think the draft is well specified in terms of its intended
> semantics. This is a problem with a standards track document,
> particularly one with big
Job Snijders wrote:
> Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up?
I don't think the draft is well specified in terms of its intended
semantics. This is a problem with a standards track document,
particularly one with big scary warnings in the security considerations
section. It needs to
On 6/29/16 1:46 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Job Snijders wrote:
>> Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to
>> implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic
>> for BLACKHOLE'ed prefixes?
>
> I would have said the opposite, i.e. that any traff
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:46:15PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Job Snijders wrote:
> > Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to
> > implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic
> > for BLACKHOLE'ed prefixes?
>
> I would have said the oppo
Job Snijders wrote:
> Should it be somehow clarified that router vendors are not supposed to
> implement mechanisms, which are by default enabled, that discard traffic
> for BLACKHOLE'ed prefixes?
I would have said the opposite, i.e. that any traffic tagged with this
prefix is dropped via e.g. nul
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 01:30:49PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> The second major area of concern I have about this proposal is the
> transitive nature of the bgp community.
I thought Section 3.2 provides enough detail on scoping routes tagged
with BLACKHOLE, however with your concern and the foll
Job Snijders wrote:
> I believe this update addresses the concerns raised in this phase of the
> document.
yes, thanks, it addresses these concerns, and the document is a lot
better as a result.
The second major area of concern I have about this proposal is the
transitive nature of the bgp commun
14 matches
Mail list logo
