Independent of any of this, would it be useful to at least add a command to print the order on the box ?
Dinesh On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:31 AM Daniel Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not opposed to making things easier/safer on the operator but my gut > says IDR is going to look at this and say that it is up to the operator > to configure bestpath knobs consistently in their AS and that a protocol > change is not needed. This is based somewhat on the pushback we received > when trying to add something as simple as a capability that allows BGP to > tell his peers what his local hostname is. We were able to acquire an > open capability code # for hostname exchange but it was not easy (I > really thought it would be going in). > > I could be completely wrong about how IDR will react to the idea of > listing bestpath order as a capability though. I think it would be good > to discuss on IDR before committing any code to quagga. My 2c. > > Daniel > > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Martin Winter <mwinter@opensourcerouting > .org> wrote: > >> On 11 Dec 2015, at 8:25, Donald Sharp wrote: >> >> I agree with Paul's reasoning here, but I also agree with Daniel's point >>> of >>> getting an actual Capability #. We recently went through the same thing >>> with the bgp hostname patch. >>> >> >> Personally, I have a hard time to see good reasons why someone wants (or >> should) >> change the order. But people sometimes have crazy (good or bad) ideas on >> abusing BGP. >> >> The main issue here is the lack of standard. I’m curious what others >> think. >> I don’t think things needs to be approved (as RFC) before added to >> Quagga, but >> at least been discussed once at IETF would be a good thing to reduce the >> risk >> of having to change it again within months with something incompatible. >> Personally, I would prefer to have this at least once (or better twice) >> discussed at the IETF IDR working group. >> >> But overall, I think the feature is at least interesting to discuss. >> >> - Martin >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Daniel Walton wrote: >>>> >>>> They didn't have any issues though. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Sure, but as per the previous thread on this, mismatches on that could >>>> indeed cause instability. >>>> >>>> I guess I still don't have my head wrapped around the exact problem that >>>> >>>>> is solved by exchanging the bestpath rules used? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Making BGP safer to use, and making it harder for operators to >>>> accidentally get their network into an "unsafe" state that might be >>>> prone >>>> to weird instability problems (potentially hard to debug). >>>> >>>> If it is desirable to have a different selection order (and it seemed >>>> Cumulus thought so? And I agree it'd be good to have cluster-list >>>> earlier), >>>> then we can make bgpd make life easier for operators by making it >>>> harder to >>>> deploy it in a likely broken config. >>>> >>>> Why make life harder for operators, when a little bit of code in bgpd >>>> can >>>> make their life easier? :) >>>> >>>> That was the use-case basically. >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> -- >>>> Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A >>>> Fortune: >>>> A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining >>>> and wants it back the minute it begins to rain. >>>> -- Mark Twain >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Quagga-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Quagga-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Quagga-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
