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

Gargi Nalawade writes:

> 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.

My time to ask for a clarification...

It seems that you are saying that:

1) when the nexthop of a BGP route doesn't match the forwarding
nexthop selected in the routing table that BGP should not advertise
the route. In your words "it breaks routing", or it has the potential
to do so.

2) If the next-hop does match, BGP should advertise its route, even if
less preferred.

A second question would be how do you define 'next-hop matching' in
the context of an iBGP route vs an IGP route.

regards,
  Pedro.

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