[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-bhatia-bgp-multiple-next-hops-01.txt
At 6:59 AM +0530 8/24/06, Manav Bhatia wrote:
Between Multiple-Hop capable speakers, the MULTIPLE_HOP attribute
MUST be used in addition to the existing NEXT_HOP/MP_REACH_NLRI in
order to announce multiple next-hops for the destinations listed in
the NLRI/MP_REACH_NLRI of the UPDATE message. If the speaker has
installed one of the next-hops concerned in its FIB, then that
particular next-hop MUST be listed in the NEXT_HOP/MP_REACH_NLRI
attribute.
This is possible in our approach, but can *never* be done in add-paths btw.
If indeed it's important to flag installed vs. non-installed routes,
it's clearly easy enough to extend either proposal to do so. I don't
think this is an interesting point of comparison.
Also, see my other message for why I think using NEXT_HOP in this way
is a bad idea.
--John
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr