Subject: RE: [Idr] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-bhatia-ecmp-routes-in-bgp-01.txt

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:25:23 +0300 (EEST)

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Jan Novak (janovak) wrote:
> > AS-paths and nexthops, because the nexthops are being used.  I ask
> > you which spec says there will be multiple BGP next-hops to begin
> > with.
> 
> Nothing to be specified it just happens in the networks ??

Seems to be working reasonably well in the current usage, though?

Just make sure the operators know the limits of applicability, i.e., 
they can shoot themselves in the foot if they aren't careful, and 
maybe that's enough?

I'd suspect there are typically alternatives to reaching about the
same goal, and multiple nexthops is probably one which is most
lucrative for stub AS's.  But is there particular reason for us to
fully 'legitimize' that approach beyond its current applicability ?  
AFAICS, I don't think that's necessary.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:40:25 -0400

> AFAICS, I don't think that's necessary.

This does seem to be a solution that doesn't have any real operational
problem to solve.  The cautious approach would be to build an AS-SET
in the AS Path if using a next hop from more than one peer AS.  No new
spec required.

Curtis