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

vijay gill writes:

> What BGP does should be separate from anything else. You have the
> bgp database, operate on the BGP database. Pick routes, only look to
> see if you have a valid next-hop, and then continue on.

Vijay,
I'm sure that your view as its merits... but we also need to consider
the question the other way around.

When you receive a BGP advertisement from a neighbor, do you expect 
traffic sent to that neighbor to follow the ASes that are present in
the corresponding routing advertisement ?

Do you make any assumptions based on the contents of such as-path
attribute ?

Is it a 'feature' or a 'bug' if traffic doesn't follow the path
advertised by routing...

This is an issue that exists today... and not strictly related to the
advertisement of inactive paths. I believe CAIDA has made measurements
of such inconsistencies.

But while it is easy for all of us to say "i'd like to be able to do
whatever i want" a more interesting question is "what i would like
others to contrain themselfs to"...

Disabling the advertisement of inactive routes is not a panacea that
will address all inconsistencies, assuming one does care about
those...

  Pedro.

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