Last Call Review of draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03
review-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03-opsdir-lc-comstedt-2014-10-17-00

Hi,

I reviewed draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03 for its
operational impact.

Intended status: Informational

Summary: This is a document focused on operational considerations for running a
BGP route-server in an Internet Exchange context. As such its operationally
focused by nature. I found it well written with no real concerns or issues. I
do have some minor comments and questions.

- Should there be a recommendation around path hiding? As the doc goes along
its gets clearer around recommendations

- 4.2.1.3, this I think is a little too loose but cleared up later (in 4.8).
Before getting to 4.8 it seems this lacks a suitable recommendation (see next
item)

- Section 4.8, NH validation a ‘must’ instead of ’should’? With the RS approach
this validation isn’t easily done by the clients and is important. So feels
like this validation should either be available by the client (explicit
enforcement) or generically validated (i.e. ‘must’).

/nco