Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt as an IDR WG document

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:57:29 -0400

Eric:

Could you clarify for me a few things in
your last paragraph

"I don't see the argument  for dynamically learning multiple threshold levels
from a peer.  Especially as there  are no real semantics associated with the
other thresholds. "

Could you be specific on what other thresholds?

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Fang, Luyuan, ALABS
Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Yakov Rekhter; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt as an IDR WG
document 

> In the current implementation, the  prefix limit is only configured on the
> BGP receiver (e.g., provider edge router), the BGP speaker (e.g. CPE) does
> not  have   any  control.   Some  implementation  has   warning  threshold
> option. When warning  limit is reached, the trap will only  show up on the
> provider  side, the  operator  has to  contact  the customer  by phone  or
> through some messaging systems.  

This suggests that it is useful for  a BGP speaker to know that a given peer
will only be  able to receive n prefixes.  In that  case, it certainly makes
sense for  the value  n to be  learned dynamically.   Both of the  drafts in
question support that functionality. 

I don't see the argument  for dynamically learning multiple threshold levels
from a peer.  Especially as there  are no real semantics associated with the
other thresholds. 

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

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

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:45:15 -0400

> Could you be specific on what other thresholds? 

In draft-chavali terminology, I think  Luyuan's argument supports the use of
the "maximum prefix limit" but not  the "reset prefix limit" or the "warning
prefix limit". 

Since the  "maximum prefix limit" is  essentially the same (I  think) as the
"prefix limit" of draft-keyur, I don't think that Luyuan's argument provides
a basis for preferring draft-chavali.

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:45:15 -0400