| Hi Gyan, Thanks for your review. According to your review I made the following changes to the document which is available now as revision -22:
<-- Tracked via issue #163: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/163 I do not agree that BGP flowspec is a client-server model -only-. We can propagate this NLRI over administrative domain borders as we do with IP routing information, it follows the same mechanisms. We see such solutions being deployed in the internet as inter provider DDoS solutions. We actually had a paragraph in the darft that was explaining the advantages over other approaches like RTBF but this has been removed because it was pointed out that it is not relevant to the spec to justify a well deployed technology. -->
<-- Tracked via issue #164: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/164 Commits mentions: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/commit/31f0ac79b7cd998aa2750fd376dc148d7a590369 https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/commit/7aadadcdf55a1f5a7d5c1822070b862247dfaead Removed the "values" statement (as suggested by Alvaro) from the draft to make clear we are not talking about particular values but about Extended Communities as specified in RFC4360. s/standardizes as BGP extended community values [RFC4360]/standardizes as BGP extended communities [RFC4360]/ --> Cheers Christoph |
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
