On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 13:45, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> soft-reconfig inbound always amounts to 100 MB of memory consumption
> for a v4 + v6 full feed as of last week on 32-bit XR. I can live with
> 100MB of memory consumption per full feed, so I'm doing soft-reconfig
> inbound always everywhere. Thi
Hello Jakob,
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 07:58, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
>
> Hi Lukas, Mark, Ben,
>
> The default bestpath prefix-validate behavior treats invalid routes
> as unfeasible and prefers valid routes over not-found.
>
> The default bestpath prefix-validate behavior cannot be used unless
On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 10:40, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 10:13:36AM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > See even if you validate in route map you may just mark it not-eligible or
> > set higher local pref for VALID etc I am not sure how anyone could
> > come with the
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 11:02:16AM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > As far as I know, no way to set "ineligible" from a route-map. Is there?
>
> A workaround could be to set unreachable next hop instead of dropping :)
> That automatically disables such path from best path comparison yet it
>
> As far as I know, no way to set "ineligible" from a route-map. Is there?
A workaround could be to set unreachable next hop instead of dropping :)
That automatically disables such path from best path comparison yet it
keeps in BGP.
But as said implementation could make it easier with a knob.
T
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 10:13:36AM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> See even if you validate in route map you may just mark it not-eligible or
> set higher local pref for VALID etc I am not sure how anyone could
> come with the idea to just drop there.
In the face of invalid more-specifics,
On 12/19/20 11:13, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Jakob,
It has been a while, but IIRC the original idea for the validation was
that regardless if this is done by configuration enabling pre-best
path eligibility or in route map no path will be dropped. At no point
in the BGP design discussions there
On 12/19/20 10:45, Saku Ytti wrote:
I think the community largely got blindsided by this, I suspect
marketability of the whole solution would have been a lot poorer if
this argument was thrown around at standardisation. However, that ship
has sailed, we can implement new cheaper methods, but
Jakob,
It has been a while, but IIRC the original idea for the validation was that
regardless if this is done by configuration enabling pre-best path
eligibility or in route map no path will be dropped. At no point in the BGP
design discussions there was a plan to automatically do any of this. So
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Jakob,
On 12/18, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> There is an issue with route-maps.
>
> Testing the RPKI validity in route-map causes BGP REFRESH messages.
> Lots of them.
> soft-reconfig helps, but that causes risk of memory exhaustion and does
> not fix the internal CPU u
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 22:07, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via cisco-nsp
wrote:
> Testing the RPKI validity in route-map causes BGP REFRESH messages.
> Lots of them.
I think the community largely got blindsided by this, I suspect
marketability of the whole solution would have been a lot poorer if
this a
11 matches
Mail list logo
