Re: Previous work on TTL on bgp routes?

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Mon, 02 July 2001 17:21 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 NAA26908 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:21:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id A168691270; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:19:53 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 734BD91271; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:19:53 -0400 (EDT)
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 7F6DC91270 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:19:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1B9EA5DDA5; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:21:06 -0400 (EDT)
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 CBD975DD93 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:21:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com ([141.211.130.148]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f62HKCZ96177 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:20:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@nexthop.com)
Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f62HKAJ00644 for idr@merit.edu; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:20:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 13:20:10 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Previous work on TTL on bgp routes?
Message-ID: <20010702132010.D246@nexthop.com>
References: <94B9091E1149D411A45C00508BACEB359CDBEB@entmail.gnilink.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <94B9091E1149D411A45C00508BACEB359CDBEB@entmail.gnilink.com>; from cmartin@gnilink.net on Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 02:39:47PM -0400
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 02:39:47PM -0400, Martin, Christian wrote:
> This is exactly what I was thinking of.  Is there interest in putting this
> in BGP?  This could significantly localize route table bloat in the
> Internet, but still allows for efficient TE in multihomed environments.

Someone has beaten us to it:

<draft-bonaventure-bgp-redistribution-00.txt>
Controlling the redistribution of BGP routes

Initial comments, already made to the author:

o The "append N-AS's by proxy" mechanism is nice, but it would be
  nicer if it was generic.
o The format of "cidr prefix/length" ebgp speakers field mechanism
  seems a little awkward, especially in the cases where the peering
  session is done over loopback interfaces or multi-hopped in some
  other fashion.

> -chris

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies