Subject: Re: draft-bhatia-ecmp-routes-in-bgp-00.txt

From: Manav Bhatia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:05:49 +0530

Erblichs,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erblichs" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:33 AM
Subject: draft-bhatia-ecmp-routes-in-bgp-00.txt

> Section 4. Advertisement of ECMP BGP routes
>
> 1) Paragraph 3 assumes that all ECMP capable speakers are equal.
>
> What is the result when two ECMP capable speakers with different
> ECMP granualar capabilities (say 3 vs 16 ECMP routes) exchange
> this new attribute? Should the selection process of "Next Hops"
> be sequential in nature?

"ECMP granular capabilities" isn't very clear to me? Are you referring to
the number of equal cost routes that can be injected into the FIB?

If yes, then its strictly an implementation specific issue and BGP can
randomly select the next-hops it injects into the FIB.

>
> Randomizing the selection process may allow two or more simultaneous
> flows
> from different BGP speakers for better load balancing. Sequential
> selection
> may under-utilize the bandwidth of the latter "Next Hops", given that
> their
> are more next hops than ECMP capable flows.
>
>
> 2) Nit.. Length of next Hop Network Address
>
> Should IPv4 length be specified since you are specifying IPv6 lengths?

I assume that you are referring to the "Length of the Next Hop" field.

This has been included to keep the attribute as generic as possible and to
be able to accommodate other different Network Layer Protocols.

Regards,
Manav

P.S.

You need to be subscribed to idr-post in order to send mails to
[email-masked].

> Mitchell Erblich
> Sr Software Engineer