Subject: Re: [Idr] Violating the BGP std.

From: Mareline Sheldon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:17:07 -0800 (PST)

| If it can be configured to do so, then no.  If thats the only way it
| works, then yes, it would be a violation.

Any particular use/reason why somebody would want to configure a "passive" peer? Will it not
increase the convergence time in the network?

Regards,
Mareline S.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

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

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:27:15 +0100

> Any particular use/reason why somebody would want to configure a
 > "passive" peer? Will it not increase the convergence time in the
 > network?

Nope ... just the opposite :).

For starter see draft-chen-bgp-avoid-collision-00.txt

R.

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:27:15 +0100

R.

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:06:07 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Mareline Sheld
on writes:
> "passive" peer? Will it not increase the convergence time in the network?
> 
> Regards,
> Mareline S.

In really ancient times this was done as needed for bug avoidance
(back as far as the BGP2/3 days).

Today's routers are a lot less buggy and also better behaved as far as
BGP convergence is concerned.  Some routers still may behave better on
cold startup if all of the BGP sessions are not brought up at once,
particularly edge routers with a large number of EBGP sessions.

The answers used to be bug avoidance and to impact the order of
sessions coming up (ie: tendency for IBGP to come up before EBGP).

Curtis

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:06:07 -0500

Curtis