On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Danny's slides were not posted is there an internet draft documenting those > BGP "local" optimizations leading to system wide systemic issues ? > > What is the point of this discussion ? > > *A* To change reflector spec back to prohibit reflection of paths previously > received from the originating client ? Could such recommendation also take > into the account the impact for the reflector itself ? > > *B* To kill some other work (ADVERTISE_OWN) which while building on > reflecting back to the originating client due it's design not having > anything to do with plain IPv4/IPv6 routes - hence have no local PE box nor > system wide impact ? > > Can you or Danny clarify the point of the talk ? >
I believe I can get the talk posted today... Hopefully also Danny can clarify some (which I believe he did on another thread as well). > Cheers, > R. > > >> Today's WG meeting brought out some contentious discussion around this >> presentation. The summary for a portion of the discussion was that >> local optimizations in BGP mechanisms can often lead to system wide >> systemic issues. One comment was that a particular feature >> (advertise-own) ends up being used in 'internet' context where it's >> inappropriate. In this instance though, often the VPN providers are >> also running 'internet' as a VPN, to lower capex/opex and take >> advantage of their larger 'internet' platforms for smaller 'vpn' >> solutions. >> >> The discussion seemed quite contentious and like it may prove >> interesting to discuss here.as well... >> >> -Chris >> _______________________________________________ >> GROW mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> >> > > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
