"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> writes:
Chris/David -I was replying to Peter saying that implementations are using the max metric announcements to avoid sending traffic to overload routers.[LES:] Are you claiming this because you know this to be true - or are you just speculating that an implementation "might" do this?
I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't claiming anything, rather I was replying to a point Peter brought up about overload bit. I believe David was also not talking about overload bit either. He was saying there was a case of using a >= max metric prefix to distribute non-routing specific information about a prefix, and thus it would probably be wrong to modify routing to that prefix based on that advertisement. At least that's how I read his comment. Thanks, Chris.
If there is an implementation doing this (i.e., sending max-metric for prefixes in conjunction with setting the OL bit) I would like to know - and I would like to know why such an implementation does this. I am familiar with implementations that may set max-link-metric in conjunction with setting the OL bit. I am also familiar with implementations that withdraw advertisements of prefixes in conjunction with setting the OL bit (oftentimes under control of a configuration option). But I am not aware of implementations that send prefix advertisements with max metric in conjunction with setting the OL bit. Doing so seems rather odd and not very useful. If an implementation wants to indicate that traffic for that destination should not be sent to that router, it would normally simply stop advertising the prefix. (The OL bit, of course, would keep traffic from transiting the router.) ?? Les _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
