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

Gargi Nalawade <gargi@cisco.com> Tue, 02 March 2004 06:01 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA04629 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 01:01:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ay2y0-0002Hn-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:01:20 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ay2wu-00025P-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:00:13 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ay2vt-0001tM-00; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:59:09 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ay2vn-0002x6-6J; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:59:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ay2vL-0002vq-6Q for idr@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:58:35 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04447 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 00:58:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ay2vI-0001oe-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:58:32 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ay2uO-0001gJ-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:57:37 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ay2tr-0001YT-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:57:03 -0500
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2004 21:56:30 -0800
Received: from cisco.com (hkidc-vpn-client-234-19.cisco.com [10.75.234.19]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i225uID1027841; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <40442200.3030904@cisco.com>
From: Gargi Nalawade <gargi@cisco.com>
Reply-To: gargi@cisco.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
CC: Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net>, idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] issue 11.2: active route, again [Re: comments on idr-bgp4-20] (fwd)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403020736200.19488-100000@netcore.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/idr/>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:56:16 -0800
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Gargi Nalawade wrote:
> 
>>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. 
> 
> 
> Really?  I'm having problems figuring out where this would be desired 
> behaviour.

Im trying to hunt for the usage if this as well. So if anyone knows of
a reason, let us know. I have only heard 3rd & 4th hand requirements so
far  where the source has either moved on or no longer exists.


>>Both behaviors are achieved today by various imple-
>>mentations even though the default may vary from vendor to vendor.
> 
> 
> Yep.
>  
> 
>>Again - time for a clarification. :) Are you asking for that the
>>behavior be present or that the spec be changed to describe both
>>behaviors?
> 
> 
> I think the specification should, very clearly, state just one
> recommended behaviour, and possibly describe an optional other
> behaviour.  I think the recommended behaviour should be what I
> proposed, and you also described.  Because that's actually what
> happens very often.
> 
> But if there is strong objection to this very clear statement of 
> behaviour (or "modification"), also spelling out the alternative is 
> important.

Now that I understand your request for modification & clarification
better, I think it makes sense. It would be good to clarify in the
spec.

If there is no operator here who can think of a reason why  they may
want to explicitly prohibit BGP from advertising a route it doesnt own,
even when the nexthop matches that in the forwarding table, we should
make the other behavior (i.e. advertise even if BGP doesnt own the route 
when the nexthop matches) the recommended one, stating the currently
stated but least used behavior as an optional alternative.

-Gargi


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