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 20:24 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 PAA04968 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:24:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id C91E59120A; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:19:31 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 92EC19131E; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:19:31 -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 A0A889120A for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:19:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7EDD05DD99; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:19:27 -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 39B905DD91 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:19:27 -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 g0IKJA318830; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:19:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@nexthop.com)
Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id g0IKJAE29560; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:19:10 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:19:10 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: Pedro Roque Marques <roque@juniper.net>
Cc: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>, "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: <20020118151910.M20541@nexthop.com>
References: <20020118092238.A29052@nexthop.com> <20020118103249.F20541@nexthop.com> <y4sg053zec0.fsf@roque-bsd.juniper.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <y4sg053zec0.fsf@roque-bsd.juniper.net>; from roque@juniper.net on Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:47:11AM -0800
X-NextHop-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:47:11AM -0800, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
> The conter argument is that reaching a deterministic state is worth
> that extra flap...

Not flap, singular, flaps plural.

Consider:

+---+
: A :
+---+
 1 2
+---+
: B :
+---+

Routers A and B are redundantly connected via networks 1 and 2.
A sends to B two routes that are equal preferable in the route
selection process (prior to the new step g).

Network 1 has a lower neighbor address than 2 and thus would be
chosen.

If network 1 flaps (bad circuit) then we unnecessarily flap the
reachability.

>   Pedro.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email