North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Global BGP community values?
At 01:16 05/10/99 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote: >Yes, i agree (actually, the BGP with metrics per that document >is compatible with currently deployed BGP) - but isn't it better >to provide a real fix and get rid of several kludges at once? I agree but then why didn't your draft make it to BCP or experimental RFC status? Perhaps if we do the community thing and demonstrate that there is a real world benefit, then we can revive your RFC draft and integrate the knowledge we gain into something that gets accepted and implemented a bit later on. -Hank > >--vadim > >To: Vadim Antonov <[email protected]>, [email protected] >From: Hank Nussbacher <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Global BGP community values? > >At 23:39 04/10/99 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote: > >The difference is your proposal requires changes to the BGP protocol (new >optional transitive attribute), whereas mine piggybacks on the existing >community attribute - thereby being able to be implemented tomorrow as >opposed to some months/years from now. > >-Hank > >> >>I proposed real metrics for BGP long time ago. Back then >>the idea didn't find any support -- apparently few people >>felt it was needed. >> >>The mechanism described in the draft is stragightforward and significantly >>more powerful than the community attribute usage proposed by Hank - and >>also can do everything MED and LOCAL_PREF can do, so these can >>be retired. >> >>Here's the URL: http://www.civd.com/~avg >> >>--vadim >> >>-------------------------------------------------- >>Hank Nussbacher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>I think everyone at one point or another has tried to influence incoming >>data flows via BGP. About the only tool available to influence the BGP >>decisions in far away places is via AS-PATH length. This turns out to be >>a fairly never-ending iterative process - that at best achieves 80% of its >>intention. It also doesn't allow for accurate decision making. As an >>alternative, neighboring ISPs and their customers usually design some BGP >>community system which is then used to influence the BGP decision process. >> >>Why can't this be extended globally [if this has already been done and >>written up in some BCP RFC - just point it out to me]? What if we all >>agreed that if some community value of say 1000000-2000000 [example] is >>seen, then those community values are to take precedence above all other >>metrics. 1000001 could mean - "this is the best path for me - always send >>pkts this way no matter what the other metrics might say". We could build >>up a table of these global community strings. ISPs that don't use it - no >>harm done. But the more ISPs (tier 1 & 2) that do use it - the better the >>end customer and ISPs have on influencing data flow. >> >>Comments welcome. >> >>Hank Nussbacher >> >> > >
|