Dear WG,
Here's the 03 version update to the route leak detection (RLD) using BMP draft.
We proposed a RLD TLV (a business relation representation) to be attached to
the BMP adj-rib-in/adj-rib-out at an AS's ingress/egress nodes. With the
allowance of TLV support in the BMP Route Monitoring Me
Dear WG,
We've uploaded a new draft version: draft-xu-grow-bmp-route-policy-attr-trace.
Thanks a lot for all the comments and suggestions online and offline since IETF
104 on this work. Specifically, we’d like to thank Jeff, Ruediger, Igor, Job,
Susan, and Thomas for your valuable comments.
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-06: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
Hi Jeff,
пн, 8 июл. 2019 г. в 22:22, Jeffrey Haas :
> Alexander,
>
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 06:06:15PM +0300, Alexander Azimov wrote:
> >- A single community is used for both route leak prevention, and
> >detection;
> >- All route leaks MUST be rejected;
> >- L is removed since w
Alexander,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 06:06:15PM +0300, Alexander Azimov wrote:
>- A single community is used for both route leak prevention, and
>detection;
>- All route leaks MUST be rejected;
>- L is removed since we don't need it in this case.
A default policy of reject all leaks
Greetings:
The BGP extended message support ( draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33)
has been sent to the IESG for publication. Would grow please review the
draft and the operational considerations?
During the long life of this draft IDR has mentioned this draft many times.
Would th
Dear colleagues,
In the attachment, you can find a candidate to become the next version of
the route-leak-detection draft. It has changed that much, that authors
decided to discuss it in the WG before publishing it in the tracker.
The most important question that was reconsidered - what we should
