On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Please note that tt is perfectly feasible not to reflect back to the client for one AFI/SAFI and still reflect back for other AFI/SAFIs.
Sure, one could do that, I don't think I said anything to the contrary.
If your main point complains about the change and permission to reflect back PATHs to the client introduced by RFC 2796 in the scope of the Internet let's drop even mentioning the ACCEPT_OWN as not relevant to the topic.
No, it's as much (more?) of an issue in VPNv4 or other SAFIs. A client will receive every best route it sends to RRs * the number of RRs. Those updates have to be processed by the client and discarded, and they're in the exact same processing path as all other BGP updates from internal or external peers. If I were running a VPN network I'd prefer that the client spend it's time and cycles chewing on useful updates, not useless updates. Also note that MANY IP/VPN deployments use the same routers for VPNs and Internet, and most implementations today don't discriminate update processing per AF. -danny _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
