IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Maximum Prefix Limit

"Manav Bhatia" <mnvbhatia@yahoo.com> Thu, 17 January 2002 05:04 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 AAA27823 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:04:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2ECCE912CC; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:04:06 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EC5ED912CD; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:04:05 -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 3D2C6912CC for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:03:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 09B185DDCE; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:03:24 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from smtp018.mail.yahoo.com (unknown [216.136.174.115]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 708275DDA8 for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:03:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from leased-200-20-226.bng.vsnl.net.in (HELO firewall) (203.200.20.226) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2002 05:02:42 -0000
Message-ID: <059c01c19f14$91b1de80$b4036c6b@Manav>
Reply-To: Manav Bhatia <mnvbhatia@yahoo.com>
From: Manav Bhatia <mnvbhatia@yahoo.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
References: <03b001c19e4e$aa86e750$b4036c6b@Manav> <20020116103528.A18433@nexthop.com>
Subject: Re: Maximum Prefix Limit
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:35:23 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

| > - 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!

Does it really make sense to have seperate counters for each SAFI?
The session in any case will be torn even if the threshold for a single
SAFI crosses. Does it make much sense in saying that," i will accept x SAFI
1 routes, y SAFI 2 routes, etc"?

Rather than this there should be a single max limit for each AFI family
which when violated should tear down the BGP session.

Regards,
Manav




_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email