Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-rfc2858bis-07.txt, SAFI=3 removed?

From: "Jan Novak \(janovak\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:31:34 +0200

Hi, 

> (Personally, I haven't verified what happens when I advertise all our 
> BGP prefixes as identically for both unicast and multicast; does that 
> result in two sets of prefixes for SAFI=1, then SAFI=2 or just 
> SAFI=3..)

I think is has been abandoned because nobody ever implemented SAFI=3
most probably because of possible problems with BGP updates
packaging/processing when depending on both sources of 
the prefixes - like this peer can do it, this can't, uni
prefix has gone, mcast prefix hasn't etc.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:38:31 -0400

My observation during our development of 2858-related support was
that safi 3 wasn't widely supported.

Additionally, the code may become more complicated for many reasons if you
try to use safi 3.  One simple example is if your packing is such
that you first receive a safi 1, readvertise it and then shortly afterwards
receive a safi 2.  You could then advertise a safi 2 or a safi 3.
However, the implication of advertising a safi 3 was that the safi 1
component was getting a spurious update.

IMO, safi 3 gained us far more complexity than the supposed simplification
for congruent topologies.  Good riddance. :-)

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies