Jeff,
I do not understand why we are not going to re-advertise "good" routes
with lowest local preference which would not result in holes of some
boxes understanding g-shut community and some not.
In fact I spoke to Bruno in the past on that and I was hoping we all
converged that g-shut community would be used only on the EBGP side to
indicate to the peer that it should in turn lower local pref on his
side. Apparently g-shut draft still calls for this new community to be
used both on iBGP and eBGP side.
Regards,
R.
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 03:32:52PM -0500, Tony Li wrote:
Understood. I have no issues with withdrawn routes. The issue is with g-shut
routes that continue to sink traffic.
Perhaps I'm unclear on your reservations.
If we don't go through something like graceful shutdown and leave the
peering session up, we're potentially going to pull significantly more
traffic toward the "bad" peering session than if we didn't do such a thing.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
