Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-bhatia-bgp-multiple-next-hops vs draft-walton-bgp-add-paths

From: "Glen Kent" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:40:25 +0530

Curtis,

> This is a silly RR configuration.  Two RR within the same RR cluster

I think the only silly thing here was to assume that this example is
only valid for RRs. Please replace RRs with routers A and B (as is
being done in all the discussions) in this example.

> for redundancy would not send routes to each other.  If they were
> different RR clusters the client A would not be in both clusters.
>
> Anyway it would still work, just have extra routes.

I think you are hugely underplaying this by saying "just have extra
routes". This thing can get horrendous if each router is advertising
the whole Internet table and there exist multiple such routers. Please
look at Paul's mail again.

Glen

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

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:52:00 -0400

> being done in all the discussions) in this example.

RR don't change the AS path.  EBGP does.  Therefore the AS path
lengths would reduce the number of equal AS Path length paths to two
in an EBGP (or confed AS) case.  Only in the RR case would the AS path
not eliminate the extra paths.

> look at Paul's mail again.

Again, the provider/operator is "silly" in this RR case in that they
increase their network converge time with no gain.  Things still work.
This case doesn't apply except in the RR case for reasons cited above.

Only where paths that are not used are included in a confed AS or EBGP
case is there an enormous increase in the amount of routing
information that may be accompanied by an enormous increase in the
convergence time (or routers running out of memory and falling over).

Curtis

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:52:00 -0400

Curtis

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:52:00 -0400

Curtis

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:52:00 -0400

Curtis