ntacpeering - Deepfield/Netflow
Subject: NTAC Peering Working Group
List archive
- From: Michael H Lambert <>
- To: "" <>
- Subject: Deepfield/Netflow
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:03:37 -0400
Changing the subject line because we've gotten out of scope for a workshop
discussion.
> On 19 Aug 2015, at 09:51, Steven Wallace
> <>
> wrote:
>
> One method that might allow more flexibility would be to have the origin AS
> tag its NLRI with community values that indicate the extent to which their
> information can be shared. Default, no tags, would mean no sharing. There
> could be a handful of tags that specify among a discrete set of sharing
> options.
>
> This would require a deliberate act to add the tags. There would need to be
> trust between members and regional networks, as regionals could insert the
> tags themselves, however the NLRI and its tags would be totally
> transparent, so anyone could see the tags.
I like this idea. I think the trust is already implicit because regionals
can already add tags to engineer members' traffic (for good or ill).
Michael
- Viability of a P&R FTW, Spears, Christopher M., 08/18/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Michael H Lambert, 08/18/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Matthew J Zekauskas, 08/18/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Spears, Christopher M., 08/18/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Ryan Nobrega, 08/18/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Rob Vietzke, 08/19/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Steven Wallace, 08/19/2015
- Deepfield/Netflow, Michael H Lambert, 08/19/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Steven Wallace, 08/19/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Spears, Christopher M., 08/18/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Matthew J Zekauskas, 08/18/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Nick Buraglio, 08/18/2015
- Re: Viability of a P&R FTW, Michael H Lambert, 08/18/2015
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.