Subject: Re: Sequence control of distributed information

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:49:37 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Robert Raszuk writes:
> 
> Let me try to probe operators about one element which may become much
> harder to achive when moving some data out of BGP umbrella. Under a
> numerous conversations I have heard requests asking for allowing
> operator to tightly control the order of information being distributed
> by BGP for example: vpnv4 routes first then ipv4 routes or ipv4 routes
> first followed by mutlicast routes etc ...
> 
> When all AFs are under the same BGP umbrella that request can be very
> easy to deliver with a simple knob. When we separate future - non
> routing data - I could easily see the case that +100K ipv4 routes is
> competing with +100K telefon numbers to be send between routers. There
> would be no easy way to allow priority control other then low level CPU
> resources allocations to each process. Even that it would be usually
> difficult to achive full task serialization on a more granular level
> that fully blocking given's process resources. That will in turn result
> in explosion of separate processes almost per task and managment of
> those will for sure provide very stable platforms :).
> 
> Bottom line - the question is - do we all agree that the only required
> mode of operation is fairness in distribution of all kinds of
> information between routers ? 
> 
> Cheers,
> R.

Some implementations are smart enough to prioritize packing IGP routes
into BGP updates (when redistributed to EBGP) and provide other
heuristics for updating "more important" information first.
Installing IGP routes in the hardware first is probably universal
among successful routers.

It would be a simple enough matter to pack BGP updates full of IPv4
routes before other information or to provide internal scheduling
whether that other information was within BGP or in another protocol.

Fairness in distribution of all kinds of information does not
currently exist.  It is not a goal.  Control over the allocation of
resources by protocol and/or data type might be a goal in the future,
but being fair might not be the outcome.

Curtis

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

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:49:37 -0400

Curtis