RE: [Idr] draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt as an IDR WG document

["Susan Hares" <shares at nexthop.com>]

Eric:

Could you clarify for me a few things in
your last paragraph

"I don't see the argument  for dynamically learning multiple threshold levels
from a peer.  Especially as there  are no real semantics associated with the
other thresholds. "

Could you be specific on what other thresholds?

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Fang, Luyuan, ALABS
Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Yakov Rekhter; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt as an IDR WG
document 



> In the current implementation, the  prefix limit is only configured on the
> BGP receiver (e.g., provider edge router), the BGP speaker (e.g. CPE) does
> not  have   any  control.   Some  implementation  has   warning  threshold
> option. When warning  limit is reached, the trap will only  show up on the
> provider  side, the  operator  has to  contact  the customer  by phone  or
> through some messaging systems.  

This suggests that it is useful for  a BGP speaker to know that a given peer
will only be  able to receive n prefixes.  In that  case, it certainly makes
sense for  the value  n to be  learned dynamically.   Both of the  drafts in
question support that functionality. 

I don't see the argument  for dynamically learning multiple threshold levels
from a peer.  Especially as there  are no real semantics associated with the
other thresholds. 


_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr