Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>om>, Tony Li writes:
> 
>    I'm not saying I want to compare MEDs across AS, just that if
>    local-pref ends up the same I don't want a routing loop.
> 
> Ah.  But then the real request is that there needs to be a consistent
> tie-breaker after equal local pref's.  Agreed.

Exactly.  wrt MED I've consistently said there were two options.
Compare MED across AS.  Or mandate a specific algorithm that insures
an order of comparison that will be look free.

>    If you want to finess it with Rich Woundy's MED election rather than
>    comparing MED across AS to avoid loops, then fine.  The group seems to
>    have come to consensus so please don't get pissed and start proposing
>    new attributes.
> 
> Me?  Get pissed? ;-)
> 
>    We seemed to have already reached consensus on the list for Rich's MED
>    election.  We still don't have a proposed change in the BGP4 text.  If
>    Rich is busy I'll write something.
> 
> Cool.  Then at least we'll really have something solid to argue about.  Me,
> I liked John's changes...  ;-)
> 
> Tony

Johns changes just said "you should be able to turn off MED
completely".  I don't find the option to "turn off MED if it loops" to
be very useful.

I proposed text that will insure we have useful MED, loop free, and
loop free across vendor implementations since there is not room for
creative and incompatible order of evaluation algorithms.

I think we're on the same page now.

Curtis