Re: iBGP route oscillation drafts

[Anindya Basu <[e-mail]>]

answers inline.

Brijesh Kumar wrote:
> 
> I have a few questions about this draft. As I haven't caught up with all mails, it may be possible these
> have been discussed earlier.
> 
> 1. It quotes two references [4] and [5] as Sigcomm 2002 submitted papers as a proof that the use of route
> reflectors alone in the absence of MEDs can lead to persistent or transient route oscillations (proof in 4)
> and whether or not route reflectors are used, configurations using the MED attribute can lead to transient 
> route oscillations (proof in 5). Also, most of the assertions in this draft are based on proof in [5]. Since 
> SIGCOMM 2002 is in August, I would like to know if these referenced drafts are in some public places, and 
> also if they have been accepted for publication.

both the references quoted have been accepted for publication in sigcomm
2002 (which is exactly what the references say). they will hopefully be
available from the sigcomm website after we turn in the final versions
on june 21.

> 2. I am curious to know if the problem is existent in real networks beyond pathological scenario depicted in
> the draft as to merit announcements and storage of multiple routes at the routers. I find it too drastic a 
> proposal for a problem whose existence/severity seems to be based on a simple paper scenario (unless I
> see reference 5). After all, it proposes to do away the most stabilizing BGP/distance vector protocol rule
> that a peer will advertise only its best route to its neighbour.

in case you have completely missed it (though it is in the references),
the original problem was outlined in an ID (reference [3]) by McPherson
et. al. and actually stems from a cisco field report called "Endless BGP
Convergence Problem in Cisco IOS Software Releases", October 10, 2000.
is that real enough?

cheers,
-anindya

p.s. and next time, please do put in line breaks in your emails, it
makes parsing so much easier :-)

> 
> cheers,
> 
> --brijesh
> 
> -----------------------
> disclaimer: The views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of my organization.
>