On 05/23/2013 11:36 PM, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:35:29PM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
>> I think all routes should be handled the same way, without regard for
>> the source protocol.
>
> Well, this is nice idea, but BGP standard (RFC 4271) specifies for route
> propaga
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:35:29PM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> > There is also a question of how BGP attribute on non-BGP route should be
> > interpreted by BGP protocol - either like BGP routes, or like non-BGP
> > routes with the attribute assigned by BGP export filter. I would prefer
> > t
On 05/22/2013 12:36 PM, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 04:31:07PM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
>> There is no reason to overwrite attributes like AS path, next hop, etc. when
>> the
>> route source is not BGP. Preserving them has several advantages:
>>
>> * no attributes are l
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 04:31:07PM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> There is no reason to overwrite attributes like AS path, next hop, etc. when
> the
> route source is not BGP. Preserving them has several advantages:
>
> * no attributes are lost by using opaque pipes
> * BGP attributes can by
There is no reason to overwrite attributes like AS path, next hop, etc. when the
route source is not BGP. Preserving them has several advantages:
* no attributes are lost by using opaque pipes
* BGP attributes can by pre-populated in other protocols' import filters
As a side effect of moving co
