Re: BGP-4+ [QOS et al]
"John G. Scudder" <jgs@ieng.com> Tue, 24 December 1996 19:56 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06790; 24 Dec 96 14:56 EST
Received: from merit.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15035; 24 Dec 96 14:56 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.4/merit-2.0) id OAA27806
for idr-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:31:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.5]) by
merit.edu (8.8.4/merit-2.0) with SMTP id OAA27801 for <bgp@merit.edu>;
Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:31:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA14727
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for bgp@ans.net);
Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:30:59 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1);
Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:30:59 -0500
Message-Id: <v0300780baee1da54b53c@[194.154.144.50]>
In-Reply-To: <199612182011.MAA23562@puli.cisco.com>
References: Your message of "Wed, 18 Dec 96 14:41:12 EST."
<199612181941.OAA26301@idrp.merit.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 21:26:29 +0200
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@ieng.com>
Subject: Re: BGP-4+ [QOS et al]
Cc: 6bone@isi.edu, dkatz@cisco.com, yakov@cisco.com, bgp@ans.net
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
One thing: being able to associate NLRI with (only) an address family seems like an unnecessary restriction. Instead, how about permitting the association of NLRI with an arbitrary RIB, as qualified by <whatever>? The additional parameter that springs to mind is QOS, so a RIB would be identified by <AFI, QOS>. There isn't any particular need to restrict things so that only AFI and QOS are usable to qualify the RIB, though. One way to do this would be to use a more general RIB ID of some sort, and associate a RIB with <AFI, other stuff> in a separate step. One would want to make the RIB establishment step sufficiently extensible that one could (at least) associate a QOS with a RIB. I see no particular reason to restrict the <other stuff> part to support only QOS, though. Alternately, I suppose you could just stick the QOS right into the attribute each time you send it. This would be less complicated, at the cost of each PDU being more piggy. For bit-counters, using a RIB ID could be useful if you assume that 256 RIBs are sufficient for a particular peer-peer association -- you can save 8 bits per PDU (compared to the current proposal) in that case by making RIB ID a single octet instead of the two octet AFI. Note that you can't properly support QOS by making it yet another path attribute, for the same reason you can't support AFI by making it just a path attribute in the obvious way -- one may want to advertise (and withdraw) the same NLRI multiple times with different QOS. By the way, one conceivable benefit of doing something like this is that it moves yet another piece of IDRP functionality into BGP. If this is considered to be a good idea, the question would be when and how to establish the RIB ID<->RIB attribute binding. --John -- John Scudder email: jgs@ieng.com Internet Engineering Group, LLC phone: (313) 669-8800 122 S. Main, Suite 280 fax: (313) 669-8661 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 www: http://www.ieng.com
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Susan Hares
- Re: BGP-4+ Susan Hares
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Brandon Black
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Dorian R. Kim
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Tony Bates
- BGP-4+ Dave Katz
- Re: BGP-4+ Dimitry Haskin
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Brad Smith
- Re: BGP-4+ Dorian R. Kim
- Re: BGP-4+ bmanning
- Re: BGP-4+ Tony Li
- Re: BGP-4+ Brad Smith
- Re: BGP-4+ Dorian R. Kim
- Re: BGP-4+ Brad Smith
- Re: BGP-4+ Curtis Villamizar
- Re: BGP-4+ Curtis Villamizar
- Re: BGP-4+ Curtis Villamizar
- Re: BGP-4+ Curtis Villamizar
- Re: BGP-4+ Dennis Ferguson
- Re: BGP-4+ Brandon Black
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Dennis Ferguson
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Geert Jan de Groot
- Re: BGP-4+ Brad Smith
- Re: BGP-4+ [QOS et al] John G. Scudder
- Re: BGP-4+ Paul Traina