Re: Maximum Prefix Limit

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Thu, 17 January 2002 14:49 UTC

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:48:16 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: Manav Bhatia <mnvbhatia@yahoo.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Maximum Prefix Limit
Message-ID: <20020117094816.A20541@nexthop.com>
References: <03b001c19e4e$aa86e750$b4036c6b@Manav> <20020116103528.A18433@nexthop.com> <059c01c19f14$91b1de80$b4036c6b@Manav> <20020117082940.A20374@nexthop.com> <014501c19f5c$5c8481c0$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: <014501c19f5c$5c8481c0$b4036c6b@Manav>; from mnvbhatia@yahoo.com on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:09:15PM +0530
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:09:15PM +0530, Manav Bhatia wrote:
> Does it mean that the next time the session comes up there is no
> ipv4/multicast capability supported? Once again, this is implementation
> specific and we could work both ways.

Exactly.  But the MIB just needs to provide the appropriate ability
to cover both situations.

Just to postulate a vendor-specific for-example, Cisco scopes
many of their commands under an address-family scope.  If prefix
limits were setable from the scope rather than globally (don't
know if they are, don't feel like diving throught the TAC
to figure it out), then the MIB needs to support it.

Even if they don't now, they may in the future.

> The session comes up after idle timer
> hoping that the sys admin would have looked into the matter OR we dont
> support ipv4/multicast (or which ever SAFI limit exceeded).

Vendor dependant.  Allowing a router to be used for transport of
some AFI/SAFI which is stable may be reasonable while yet protecting
the rest of the network from an "unstable" variation.

> Manav

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies