Re: Maximum Prefix Limit

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Thu, 17 January 2002 13:31 UTC

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:29:40 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: Manav Bhatia <mnvbhatia@yahoo.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Maximum Prefix Limit
Message-ID: <20020117082940.A20374@nexthop.com>
References: <03b001c19e4e$aa86e750$b4036c6b@Manav> <20020116103528.A18433@nexthop.com> <059c01c19f14$91b1de80$b4036c6b@Manav>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <059c01c19f14$91b1de80$b4036c6b@Manav>; from mnvbhatia@yahoo.com on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:35:23AM +0530
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:35:23AM +0530, Manav Bhatia wrote:
> Does it really make sense to have seperate counters for each SAFI?

The MIB needs to allow for implementations tomake that choice.
A per AFI/SAFI counter may be reasonable.  A per AFI counter is also
reasonable.

> The session in any case will be torn even if the threshold for a single
> SAFI crosses. Does it make much sense in saying that," i will accept x SAFI
> 1 routes, y SAFI 2 routes, etc"?

No, but it may make sense to say "I'll accept X ipv4/unicast routes, but
if I get > Y ipv4/multicast routes, drop the peer session, potentially
removing the ipv4/multicast capability".

> Manav

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies