Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your support! Agree with you that lots of work is still
needed, including further detailing each of the reason codes, which will
probably require additional TLVs (like we are doing for policy discard
and you were proposing for malformed update).
Inline:
On 4/11/23 10:2
Hi Jeff,
Thanks, as always, for your inputs.
On 4/11/23 10:33, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
[ .. ]
The primary reason to do these things in each message is the presumption of
a completely stateless consumer. If you're doing a distributed collector,
this is a nice to have behavior, but also one that
Hi Luuk,
Inline:
On 1/11/23 14:48, Luuk Hendriks wrote:
[ .. ]
That makes sense, but I am a bit on the fence about this TLV being
optional and the fallback scenario. Is there enough incentive to
implement this TLV on the router side, or will this be a nice idea on
paper while in reality B
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 01:34:17PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> The authors of draft-francois-grow-bmp-loc-peer asked whether GROW
> working group could consider adoption of the internet-draft.
>
> This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
> internet-draft should be adopt
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 02:48:36PM +0100, Luuk Hendriks wrote:
> That makes sense, but I am a bit on the fence about this TLV being
> optional and the fallback scenario. Is there enough incentive to
> implement this TLV on the router side, or will this be a nice idea on
> paper while in reality BMP
Job,
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 12:57:08AM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> The authors of draft-lucente-grow-bmp-rel asked whether GROW
> working group could consider adoption of the internet-draft.
>
> This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
> internet-draft should be adopt
