Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-10-14
Requested 2014-09-12
Authors Nick Hilliard , Elisa Jasinska , Robert Raszuk , Niels Bakker
Draft last updated 2014-10-17
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Niclas Comstedt (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -03 by John Scudder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Niclas Comstedt
State Completed
Review review-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03-opsdir-lc-comstedt-2014-10-17
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 05)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2014-10-17

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

-, 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

- 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’).