Subject: RE: issue 11

From: "Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:42:58 +0530

Hello,

    If there is any interest in making this behavior deterministic, this
might be a good candidate for an internet-draft. Is there any WG interest in
working on this ?

Sivanand
([email-masked])

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 7:20 PM
> To: Sivananda Ramnath - CTD, Chennai.
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: issue 11
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 06:06:22PM +0530, Sivananda Ramnath - 
> CTD, Chennai. wrote:
> >     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?
> 
> >     I would like to suggest that all sections which use 
> MUST in the context
> > of only one route in Loc-RIB be relaxed a little to a 
> SHOULD, and a section
> > added that states that it is possible for a n 
> implementation to add more
> > than one route to the Loc-RIB for the purposes of load balancing.
> 
> Is it truly adding more than one route to the LocRib or just the FIB?
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Haas 
> NextHop Technologies
>