RE: Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt-advertise inactive

["Abarbanel, Benjamin" <[e-mail]>]

Jeff:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 11:25 AM
> To: Abarbanel, Benjamin
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt-advertise inactive
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:56:01PM -0400, Abarbanel, Benjamin wrote:
> > Then all other route types that win over the BGP routes in 
> the Routing table
> > should be automatically exported to BGP.
> 
> Probably the simplest way of dealing with this is dealing with
> the case when a route in LocRib and the Routing table conflict
> and the Routing Table has a non-BGP route installed in it is
> to note that (in almost all cases if not always) the route actually
> installed in the Routing Table is the one passed to Phase 3 of
> the selection process.
> 

My point is that the non-BGP route has to be configured for export to
BGP for this to be done. Sometimes it is not obvious and the operator
forgets to do so. Sometimes, he intentially does not want to do so.
Thus a potential inconsistency could occur. 

Remember non-BGP routes do not have attributes like AS-Path. If an
IGP/Static route is prefered over a IBGP route for a destination that is
outside this AS, it could create routing loops. Implying the route got
exported from EBGP to IGP by another IBGP router. Then that router flooded
this route as a regular IGP 
route to the current router, where the problem occured. Now that I have
twisted your thinking a bit, you see the problem.

> -- 
> Jeff Haas 
> NextHop Technologies
>