On 10/11/18, 9:35 AM, "GROW on behalf of Nick Hilliard" <grow-boun...@ietf.org
on behalf of n...@foobar.org> wrote:
Jeffrey Haas wrote on 11/10/2018 17:19:
> "inactive due to having been learned from a different routing protocol".
>
> Nick, would you clarify with an example?
route X is learned via e.g. ISIS with precedence A.
route Y is learned via BGP with precedence B.
FIB is programmed with route X because precedence A trumps precedence B.
Route Y is marked as inactive (i.e rib-failure on ios).
I.e. normal operation of route selection, but BMP records BGP, so
there's inconsistency as far as BMP is concerned, just how that relates
to where packets are directed on the box.
The local RIB in BMP should only contain what is/would be used/installed. In
other words, the local rib sent via BMP should not contain the suppressed
prefixes that were not installed due to another routing protocol/direct/static
having a better preference. I think we should allow the implementation to
suppress the inactive or to advertise the inactive prefixes. We can use a
per-peer flag to indicate that the NLRI's in the RM/BGP UPDATE are suppressed
due to another routing protocol/direct/static having better preference. We'll
also need to add a new INFO TLV in the PEER UP to indicate the expected
conveyance of inactive/rib-failure NLRI's.
Unless others have hardship about adding this, I can do an update.
Thanks,
Tim
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
