On Mar 28, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Pradosh Mohapatra wrote:
> Hi Jay,
>
>
>>> at this afternoon's sidr ssion, i presented two open issue with
>>> draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-04.txt
>>>
>>> 1 - Should updates learned via iBGP be marked?
>>>
>>> 2 - Should updates injected into BGP on this router b
> No - knob to turn on IBGP validation.
how many knobs will i have to turn to get policy control of my router?
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
I couldn't go to IETF either. The argument is over what the default
behavior should be (spec'ed). My vote is that origin validation
should
NOT be performed on IBGP learnt prefixes by default as there is
potential for loops and inconsistency. For everything else, there are
knobs.
you mean like
> I couldn't go to IETF either. The argument is over what the default
> behavior should be (spec'ed). My vote is that origin validation should
> NOT be performed on IBGP learnt prefixes by default as there is
> potential for loops and inconsistency. For everything else, there are
> knobs.
you m
Hi Jay,
at this afternoon's sidr ssion, i presented two open issue with
draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-04.txt
1 - Should updates learned via iBGP be marked?
2 - Should updates injected into BGP on this router be marked?
i think yes because:
o i want support of incremental deployment
o i do n
Randy Bush writes:
> at this afternoon's sidr ssion, i presented two open issue with
> draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-04.txt
>
> 1 - Should updates learned via iBGP be marked?
>
> 2 - Should updates injected into BGP on this router be marked?
>
> i think yes because:
> o i want support
at this afternoon's sidr ssion, i presented two open issue with
draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-04.txt
1 - Should updates learned via iBGP be marked?
2 - Should updates injected into BGP on this router be marked?
i think yes because:
o i want support of incremental deployment
o i do not want to
