On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm, again, not arguing FOR this configuration, just saying you could >> make it work, at a price of longer outages (most likely) and more >> (much MUCH more) complexity in your operations. I don't see what LLA >> gets you that: >> 1) put all your ptp/loops into 1 aggregate >> 2) do not announce the aggregate (internally (see schilller paper) >> nor externally) >> 3) acls on the edge that drop traffic destined to your ptp/loops addresses. >> >> complexity is going to cause you pain, it is going to cause you >> problems and it is going to lengthen outages :( avoid complexity. > > agree. hence i am of the opinion that the class of configuration in the > draft should be clearly labeled as dangerous and ill-advised.
sure, a clear warning that: "Doing this is loading the double-barrel and aiming it clearly at your thigh!" seems ok to me. > though you might be arguing for its use by masochists and isps who want > to lose customers. :) "I encourage my competitors to do this..." --<internet operator curmudgeon> -chris _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
