Re: [Idr] issue 11.2: active route, again [Re: comments on idr-bgp4-20] (fwd)

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Gargi Nalawade wrote:
> 
>>Are you asking that BGP advertise a route even if the nexthop of the
>>route in the forwarding table is different? If so, this definitely
>>breaks routing. As long as the nexthop of the 2 routes are the same,
>>there is no problem.
> 
> 
> Thanks for asking for clarification; I think this is very useful, and 
> a point which has not been spelled out clearly enough.
> 
> I'm only interested of the case where the next-hop interface is the
> same for both protocols. (Obviously, there is no 1-to-1 mapping,
> because IGP gives an interface, but BGP an address.)

For this case - there is no problem. Some implementations can already
do this. But again there are operators who want the opposite behavior
as well. i.e. BGP should not advertise a route if it is not the owner
even if the BGP nexthop is the same as that of the route in the
forwarding table. Both behaviors are achieved today by various imple-
mentations even though the default may vary from vendor to vendor.

Again - time for a clarification. :) Are you asking for that the
behavior be present or that the spec be changed to describe both
behaviors?

-Gargi

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr