Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: BGP Metrics

  • From: batz
  • Date: Tue Feb 02 12:14:19 1999

On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Rusty Zickefoose wrote:

:1. Ignore routing aggregation - Everybody announces the sub-net.
:	This works, but runs counter to a long standing goal of the
:	community - reducing the size of the routing table.

My understanding of this setup is that they do not have portable
space and have been allocated a block from you, and one from
their other provider. If this is the case:

Wouldn't this depend on what they were using multihoming for? 

If the customer site were able to send communities to their
other provider that would tag the routes that you had assigned
them as no-export, you wouldn't be crowding the global table. 
If you also recieved their other peers route, you would not 
export that route into the global table. 

You would continue announcing your supernet, as would the 
other provider theirs, and there is no pollution in the tables.

:3. Local announcement only
:	May be the result of 2 above, but again - proves the point.

Is this what I just described? 

:
:My question is, would the creation of a "multi-homed" flag in the BGP
:protocol be worth while discussing?

How is this different than the multi_exit descriptor? 
(CCO is down as I write this so I can't look it up.) 

--
jamie.reid              
Chief Reverse Engineer 
Superficial Intelligence Research Division
Defective Technologies






Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.