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