Hi all, John G. Scudder wrote:
Fast forward to present, there's been significant renewed interest sowe've dusted off the draft and modified the mechanism to make it more implementor-friendly. I'm hoping that the WG would still, after the long hiatus, like to adopt the draft.
Having been thinking myself about a similar custom system from time to time, this looks very useful to me.
Briefly reading through the draft, I do notice that there is no way to detect the existence of a peer if it sends no prefixes (except when the session goes down).
This should probably not be a common case, but we do see it from time to time. It would be useful for us to be able to have this data.
cheers, Erik Romijn RIPE NCC RIS _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow