Subject: RE: issue 11

From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:08:29 -0400

My only issue with this is. If we have the multiplicity of several routes
for the same destination with different next hops in the Loc-RIB, then
we should state that we must maintain that consistency in each Adj-RIB-out
that is not policy filtered (DENY) for this destination. Otherwise, we don't
always advertise to our peers what we really use for forwarding. 

Ben

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:57 AM
> To: Jeffrey Haas
> Cc: Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai.; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: issue 11 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 06:06:22PM +0530, Sivananda Ramnath 
> - CTD, Chennai. w
> rote:
> > >   There is support in some router vendors to allow more 
> than one BGP route
> > > to be installed, for the purpose for load balancing. 
> Given that this is a
> > > current practice, and seems to be a useful feature as 
> well, should we insist
> > > that only one route be installed in the Loc-RIB ? 
> > 
> > When more than one instance is installed in the LocRib, how
> > many instances are distributed to the Adj-Ribs-Out?  Is it 
> deterministic?
> > Does more than one vendor support this mechanism in an interoperable
> > fashion?
> 
> As Sivanand mentioned in his e-mail:
> 
>  The handling of such a configuration, however, is outside the
>  scope of this RFC.
> 
> Yakov.
>