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

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Curtis,

   MEDs are useful and are still useful if compared across AS.  

Why?  There are clearly some semantics that you have in mind, but you're
not expressing the need at all.  Given a global administrative metric
(hmmm...  and I guess calling it the GAM attribute would lead us to be
politically incorrect... ;-), what information are you trying to convey?  

I suppose that I can still see _some_ utility in expressing a local
preference for an entry point where there are truly multiple interconnects,
but I fail to see the need for global semantics.  Moreover, I can see that
having two interacting metrics with global semantics is just another way to
increase the complexity of the current (ridiculous) situation.

   The way
   we use BGP, no two AS should be announcing the same prefix at the same
   local-pref under normal circumstances.  If the local-pref were the
   same I'd rather have something that didn't form a routing loop.

I'm confused.  How did local-pref enter the discussion?

   Getting rid of MED is not a constructive suggestion.

I'm very sorry you feel that way.  Perfection is only attained when you
have removed everything that can be removed, and no more.  Perhaps you
would care to make some simple, concrete, and constructive suggestions?

Tony