On (2013-01-23 10:16 +0100), Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > What I meant to say is that "is receiving at least this prefix" and " hoping > the edge works" is all we have right now to make a decision whether to > originate a default route. > I still lack the BGP table/routing table credibility check before that > particular node originates/advertises a default route.
Right. Then we might be venturing into enterprisy PfR domains. If we want something practical to deploy in multivendor SP network today and past 20 years, recursive static routes FTW. Maybe some sort of next-hop-group could offer more robustness without very high complexity, where you'd only choose next-hop if N networks all recurse to same destination. Then you would choose given ASBR edge only if it contains each of your critical destinations. But introducing lot of complexity to deal edge cases, it's unsure which happens more often, the problem you're trying to protect from or problem caused by the complex setup. If folks today are just relying on ASBR peer interface being up, which is really poor indication of functionality, they're getting so much better quality by pinning to some EBGP prefix. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
