Andrew Chi writes: > On 3/13/13 10:19 AM, Andrew Chi wrote: > > Yesterday, Ruediger talked about a 4th validation state for BGP routes > > (RFC 6811 gives only 3). After thinking about it more, I believe it may > > be helpful to call this validation state "Uninitialized". Here's why. > > After talking to Doug and Sriram, it sounds like others already had this > discussion using the term "Undefined." That's probably a better word, > since one might need it for more than just startup conditions. > > Should we explicitly call out this state? Did we already decide not to?
Hi, Not commenting for now on the need for a new term or the choices offered, but I did want to point out that junos has a "4th" state now: Per http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/certification/router-configuration: =============== Note: There is an additional state in JunOS called “unverified”, which indicates prefixes that haven’t been policed. This means there may be a BGP neighbour session that doesn’t have an import policy route-validation applied. You can verify this with the following command: junos.rpki.example.net> show route protocol bgp validation-state unverified =============== We can hash out whether another standard state is required, but I wanted to urge that in the end we arrive at a set of states with names that have clear and unambiguous meanings. Thanks. Jay B. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
