Subject: bgp draft comments

From: "Natale, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:04:57 -0400

Maybe disallowing the installation of more specific routes of a direcly
attached networks.  This is a mis-config, but the more graceful way of
handling it seems to be to ignore the route, or only re-advertise it (don't
install it). This seems like a job for the INFORM.

Also, related to the above, what about allowing the
advertisement/origination of more specific routes of a locally reachable
route?  This seems to be legitimate, but is not allowed explicitly in the
draft.  Also it is referred to at
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122
t/122t11/ft11bpri.htm so there seems to be a need/current implementation.

---

From: "Natale, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:09:14 -0400

1)
IOS does not allow a /32 to kill an interface, other implementations do.  If
you do allow it then it opens up an easy way to kill a router (assuming the
router does not filter it).

2)
I was not referring to overlapping routes.  Prior to the new feature below,
it was not possible to advertise 1.1/16 if you did not have 1.1/16 in the
routing table but did have 1/8 in the routing table.

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 11:41 PM
To: Natale, Jonathan
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: bgp draft comments 

In message
<[email-masked]
> install it). This seems like a job for the INFORM.

In practice this is done (rarely).  For example, any BSD system allows
a /32 to override the subnet of a local interface.

> t/122t11/ft11bpri.htm so there seems to be a need/current implementation. 

Where is this prohibited?  Overlapping routes are used all the time.

Curtis