IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A Question about Tie breaking rules (draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.t xt)

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Fri, 18 January 2002 15:34 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA24265 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:34:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A41B491203; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:33:27 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 784F891318; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:33:27 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71EF891203 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:33:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 476515DDB6; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:33:26 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from presque.djinesys.com (presque.djinesys.com [198.108.88.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012CA5DDA3 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:33:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0IFWl309757; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@nexthop.com)
Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id g0IFWn529137; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:32:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:32:49 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
Cc: "Reddy, Sudhakar" <sudhakarr@netplane.com>, 'Manav Bhatia' <mnvbhatia@yahoo.com>, idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: A Question about Tie breaking rules (draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.t xt)
Message-ID: <20020118103249.F20541@nexthop.com>
References: <20020118092238.A29052@nexthop.com> <Pine.GSO.4.21.0201180928340.23534-100000@ruwhite-u10.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0201180928340.23534-100000@ruwhite-u10.cisco.com>; from ruwhite@cisco.com on Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 09:30:43AM -0500
X-NextHop-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 09:30:43AM -0500, Russ White wrote:
> Not when you're announcing, but you've received the same route
> from two peers which are otherwise 'identical' in metrics.

Where the routes are non-identical, but equally preferable, 
selecting the candidate based on peering session address is 
potentially less preferable to selecting based on age.  The more
stable route would be more preferable to the route with the
"better" peer address.

I even seem to remember a certain $LARGE_ROUTER_VENDOR behaving
that way once-upon-a-release. :-)

> Russ

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email