On Mon, 14 Dec 2015, Daniel Walton 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.
IDR is hard to get stuff through, yes. Partly for bad reasons, but also maybe for good reasons. ;)
Ideally we need a global capability code for this. Otherwise we need to make the initial capability handshake a little bit more convoluted to be sure the vendor-private handshake is really the same on both sides. (E.g. add a magic number).
Otherwise, we leave the decision-order alone forever more (and warn users about the existing knobs and hide or deprecate). Which maybe'd be a slight shame, as BGP could be made safer and better (e.g. better able to balance load in more complex iBGP topologies) if it wasn't so risky to change it.
regards, -- Paul Jakma, HPE Networking, Advanced Technology Group Fortune: Paranoia is heightened awareness. _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
