We got it.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 at 20:45, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
wrote:
> On 4/19/17, 10:03 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>
> Jared:
>
> > Are you saying that IOS-XR is non-compliant with 9.1.1 because it does
> not have “bgp
> > unsafe-ebgp-policy” as the default?
>
> No. I wasn’t talking about an
On 4/19/17, 10:03 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
Jared:
> Are you saying that IOS-XR is non-compliant with 9.1.1 because it does not
> have “bgp
> unsafe-ebgp-policy” as the default?
No. I wasn’t talking about any specific implementation.
One of the reasons I like your document is the fact that
> On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
> wrote:
>
> My bigger issue with 9.1.1 is that it is the first step of the decision
> process – the intent, as I understand it, is for the routes not to even reach
> that point.
I’m not in agreement here as it’s well within the power of
John:
Hi!
My bigger issue with 9.1.1 is that it is the first step of the decision process
– the intent, as I understand it, is for the routes not to even reach that
point.
If the text in 9.1.1. is interpreted as “MUST NOT” (which is not what it
says!), then there is probably more work to be d
On Apr 18, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> Note that 9.1.1. says that if “the route is ineligible, the route MAY NOT
> serve as an input to the next phase of route selection”. IOW, even if routes
> are “ineligible” they can still be used (because of the MAY), which is not
>
Dear all,
Alvaro's proposal presents a significant change to the document. As
document authors, we've requested the responsible AD (Warren Kumari) to
extend the IETF Last Call to be able to process the suggestions. Thanks!
Kind regards,
Job
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 01:08:46PM +, Alvaro Retan
