Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt

["John G. Scudder" <jgs at juniper.net>]

On May 7, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> That
>> actually would be OK as long as the other rules I've cited above are
>> followed, i.e. the route may only go into a VRF other than the
>> source.  In that sense, the ACCEPT_OWN community is belt-and-
>> suspenders rather than being strictly necessary.
>
> Exactly.  With such a knob, no additional well known communities are
> really required.  However, for your use case, you still require
> information present to help prevent loops.

Actually given the other rules we've discussed I don't see where  
there's potential for loops even absent the ACCEPT_OWN community,  
which is why I referred to it as "belt-and-suspenders".  If you can  
think of a specific loop scenario, I'd be interested to hear it.

> This would potentially
> change your draft from "add this well known community" to "routers may
> be configured to accept their own routes under these circumstances".
> This potentially moves ACCEPT_OWN to an advisory community.


Seems like an editorial rather than normative change -- essentially  
emphasizing that the behavior is controlled by configuration and  
defaults off.  As such, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

--John
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr