Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-bhatia-bgp-multiple-next-hops-01.txt

[Paul Jakma <paul at clubi.ie>]

Hi John,

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, John G. Scudder wrote:

> As to the re-advertisement case -- yes, the path identifier has to be 
> reconstructed.  Again, this seems to me a simple problem.

If it's simple, could you give one solution? The add-path draft could 
then incorporate it as an example, retaining the freedom of 
implementation the draft has as a goal. (Obviously, next-hop is one 
answer).

The draft though seems to encourage use of speaker identities as the 
additional identifier. That, above all else, is what worries us.

> As to redundancy -- if you can make the case convincingly that there is 
> never, under any circumstance, a case where one might want to advertise more 
> than a single route with a given next hop, then I think you have a strong 
> argument.  I'm not convinced of this premise yet, however.  (See previous 
> message with example involving confederations, for one.)

Thanks, will have a look.

> If indeed there is ever a case where you want to advertise two 
> routes with the same next hop, then the path identifier is not 
> redundant.

Agreed. We can't see how such cases would arise, but let me consider 
your other email.

regards,
--
Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of
course you never do."
-- Gregory Bateson

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