nanog mailing list archives
Re: Large BGP Communities beacon in the wild
From: James Bensley <jwbensley () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:28:21 +0100
On 27 October 2016 at 16:47, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
I don’t mind the move to 32, but I hope the vendors are getting appropriately smacked for squatting and that those attributes are not allowed to be misappropriated by the vendors. We have a standards process for a reason and vendors simply squatting on numbers is a violation of that process which cannot be allowed to stand unless we wish to establish that as precedent and simply allow vendors to claim numbers as they wish. This already happened with the BSD community in their implementation of a pseudo-VRRP like capability and now two different vendors have abused BGP path attributes. This is not a good path for us to continue. Owen
Here here! Name and shame, it is not acceptable! James.
Current thread:
- Large BGP Communities beacon in the wild Job Snijders (Oct 11)
- Re: Large BGP Communities beacon in the wild Baldur Norddahl (Oct 11)
- Re: Large BGP Communities beacon in the wild Job Snijders (Oct 26)
- Re: Large BGP Communities beacon in the wild Owen DeLong (Oct 27)
- Re: Large BGP Communities beacon in the wild James Bensley (Oct 27)
- Re: Large BGP Communities beacon in the wild Christopher Morrow (Oct 27)
- Re: Large BGP Communities beacon in the wild Randy Bush (Oct 28)
- Re: Large BGP Communities beacon in the wild Owen DeLong (Oct 27)
- Re: [routing-wg] Large BGP Communities beacon in the wild Exa (Oct 28)