IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Thinking forward to Vancouver, important dates.

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 06 July 2012 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622DD21F85CD for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G1qFmlEswFyg for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A10721F8622 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15588 invoked by uid 399); 6 Jul 2012 15:03:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.91?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.31.235.177) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 6 Jul 2012 15:03:31 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 83.31.235.177
Message-ID: <4FF6FE42.8010401@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:03:30 +0200
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com>
References: <CC0A0295.26FA1%terry.manderson@icann.org> <20120625155835.GA19669@vaf-mac1.cisco.com> <90A7C124-89E6-4755-8462-1D9B02FDDA35@gmail.com> <4FEEDCC9.9040606@raszuk.net> <18ED80B7-0DFE-434D-AD32-06B2728F0157@gmail.com> <4FF6F8A1.8040705@raszuk.net> <06130870-A767-4E75-A8FF-8E23D213C54C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <06130870-A767-4E75-A8FF-8E23D213C54C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Thinking forward to Vancouver, important dates.
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:03:16 -0000

>> No. EBGP multipath and IBGP multipath are clear examples where in vanilla BGP you install more then one BGP path to RIB.
>>
>
> in which RFC is this defined? I looked for but not found it. I am not looking
> for multiple routes in the RIB but in the FIB. If you can point me to the
> correct RFC, I am interested.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-issues-06
Section 2.11.3

It does not require protocol extension so this is a BGP implementation 
thing. IETF RFCs are not to describe implementations, but protocol.

And of course multipaths are installed both in RIB and FIB.

>> Of course this is BGP itself. Nothing to do with TE. Please see:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-04
>
> Well, I had the impression that this extended community was used
> to announce the link capacity more than its usage.

True.

> Do you know if someone is using this community to adapt the load
 > balancing according to the link load?

I do not know if this would be a good idea in the first place.

R.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email