Re: [Idr] draft-rosen-idr-aigp-00

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the comments. Inline:

| I would like to support the suggestion made yesterday by Enke 
| Chen, Keyur Patel and Danny which suggested to make a good 
| analysis for using MED + Cost Community which are an already 
| existing tools to achieve the same functionality as the draft 
| proposed via a definition of a new AIGP attribute.

Here are the replies I made during the WG discussion for these
questions:

1) MED alone is not a good tool since the MED comparison step
   is after AS_PATH length comparison.
2) Cost community is an extended community which is optional
   transitive. We want to make the attribute non-
   transitive to restrict its scope of propagation.

- Pradosh

| 
| In fact the problem described in the draft is a very good 
| example where practical problem can be solved using the above 
| two solutions combined together.
| 
| It can be a very good motivation for restarting work on cost 
| community itself which were last posted 
| draft-retana-bgp-custom-decision-00. There are apparently 
| practical cases which this draft has a potential to solve and 
| IMHO there is a saving to implement something once and then 
| reuse for various applications as opposed to implementing 
| separate attributes which would at the end result in more 
| burden to BGP and deployment difficulties.
| 
| Cheers,
| R.
| 
| _______________________________________________
| Idr mailing list
| Idr@ietf.org
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
| 