Re: Maximum Prefix Limit

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Wed, 16 January 2002 15:36 UTC

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:35:29 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: Manav Bhatia <mnvbhatia@yahoo.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Maximum Prefix Limit
Message-ID: <20020116103528.A18433@nexthop.com>
References: <03b001c19e4e$aa86e750$b4036c6b@Manav>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <03b001c19e4e$aa86e750$b4036c6b@Manav>; from mnvbhatia@yahoo.com on Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 10:58:43AM +0530
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 10:58:43AM +0530, Manav Bhatia wrote:
> - Should there be counters for individual SAFI or should there be a
> consolidated one for the entire AFI?

Those of us working on the v2MIB would like to hear opinions on this!

> We must have a mechanism wherein we can inform admin guys in the network
> leaking routes causing an overflow for us. This issue was brought up some
> time back in the list but i saw no apparent conclusion to the whole
> discussion ;-)
> 
> Is there any intention of introducing a new cease sub-code in the
> NOTIFICATION message which will inform both the parties of the reason why
> the session was brought down!

SNMP traps are certainly appropriate here.
The NOTIFICATION subcode has already been discussed.

One thing that I'm noting:
Enke,

MPBGP's NLRI sends AFI,SAFI as a 3 octet field.  The capability
advertisement version sends it as 4 octets with the third octet
being "reserved".

Did we want to reserve the space in the notification data for
the "reserved" portion or just stick to what we have in the NLRI?

> Manav

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies