Hi Grow WG,
as already announced during IETF 93 I would like to ask for WG adoption for
this I-D.
Best regards,
Thomas
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:51:35AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:43:42PM +, Thomas King wrote:
> > > On 28 Jul 2015, at 17:34, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > > One thing I'd recommend for the draft is explicit discussion about the
> > > scope
> > > of the community and its
Thomas,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:43:42PM +, Thomas King wrote:
> > On 28 Jul 2015, at 17:34, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > One thing I'd recommend for the draft is explicit discussion about the scope
> > of the community and its expected propagation characteristics.
>
> I just uploaded a revised
> On 28 Jul 2015, at 17:34, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
…
> One thing I'd recommend for the draft is explicit discussion about the scope
> of the community and its expected propagation characteristics.
I just uploaded a revised version of the draft. It contains an overhauled
section 3 (Operational Re
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:23:07PM +0200, Jon Mitchell wrote:
> > Comment at the mic from today’s GROW session:
> >
> > Please be mindful of “prior art” (as Joel Jaggeli described it) regarding
> > the use of AS65535.
> >
> > RFC7300 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7300
>
> I believe this draft'
> On 23 Jul 2015, at 13:23, Jon Mitchell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:05 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>
>> Comment at the mic from today’s GROW session:
>>
>> Please be mindful of “prior art” (as Joel Jaggeli described it) regarding
>> the use of AS65535.
>>
>> RFC7300 http://tool
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:05 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> Comment at the mic from today’s GROW session:
>
> Please be mindful of “prior art” (as Joel Jaggeli described it) regarding the
> use of AS65535.
>
> RFC7300 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7300
I believe this draft's use of well known
Comment at the mic from today’s GROW session:
Please be mindful of “prior art” (as Joel Jaggeli described it) regarding the
use of AS65535.
RFC7300 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7300 which talks about the use of
communities of AS65535. You may
want to consider what community you want to use in
Hi Job et all,
> On 26 Jun 2015, at 21:27, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 06:27:23PM +, Thomas King wrote:
>>> Another remark, should you decide to rename BLACKHOLEIXP to just
>>> BLACKHOLE, you might want to replace the references to "IXP" throughout
>>> the document and ma
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 06:27:23PM +, Thomas King wrote:
> > Another remark, should you decide to rename BLACKHOLEIXP to just
> > BLACKHOLE, you might want to replace the references to "IXP" throughout
> > the document and make it more general.
>
> I am not sure if a more general approach (= I
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:51:55PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 06:27:23PM +, Thomas King wrote:
> > so, do you propose that the IXP RS MUST add a NO_EXPORT to the route
> > that passed the IRR filters and which is requested to be blackholed?
> > This is completely fine
Thomas,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 03:50:36PM +, Thomas King wrote:
> I added the following text to the draft:
> The presence of this BLACKHOLEIXP BGP community may introduce a resource
> exhaustion attack to BGP speakers. If a BGP speaker receives many IP prefixes
> containing the BLACKHOLE BG
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 06:27:23PM +, Thomas King wrote:
> so, do you propose that the IXP RS MUST add a NO_EXPORT to the route that
> passed the IRR filters and which is requested to be blackholed?
> This is completely fine with me.
Or NO_ADVERTISE, if appropriate.
I'm wondering if people w
Hi Job et al,
> On 26 Jun 2015, at 19:13, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:51:40PM +, Thomas King wrote:
>> we submitted this document in order to unify and simplify triggering
>> blackholing at IXPs. We propose to define a well-known BGP community
>> for this.
>>
>> Any f
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:51:40PM +, Thomas King wrote:
> we submitted this document in order to unify and simplify triggering
> blackholing at IXPs. We propose to define a well-known BGP community
> for this.
>
> Any feedback is highly appreciated.
In every single RBTH implementation I know
Hi Jeffrey et all,
> On 15 Jun 2015, at 21:30, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
…
> I'm generally supportive of this draft. The Security Considerations cover
> the majority of the issues this standardized blackhole community introduces.
Thanks for your feedback.
> I would suggest one additional considera
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:51:40PM +, Thomas King wrote:
> Hi Everybody,
>
> we submitted this document in order to unify and simplify triggering
> blackholing at IXPs. We propose to define a well-known BGP community for this.
>
> Any feedback is highly appreciated.
I'm generally supportive
Hi Everybody,
we submitted this document in order to unify and simplify triggering
blackholing at IXPs. We propose to define a well-known BGP community for this.
Any feedback is highly appreciated.
Best regards,
Thomas
> On 28 May 2015, at 20:59, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A new
18 matches
Mail list logo
