-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:43 AM To: Shane Amante Cc: [email protected] [email protected] Subject: Re: [GROW] RR reflection to clients
On 27 mrt 2009, at 3:43, Shane Amante wrote: > Re: your comment on "breaking groupwise processing" ... don't RR's > already have to account for not sending updates to a specific peer > (or, set of peers) based on various ORF types they've received from > that peer (assuming ORF's are enabled)? Why can't that same code/ > logic apply here (i.e.: it's already written, why can't we re-use it > here)? >>Hm, aren't filters on iBGP sessions considered bad style? >>I don't know what implementations do when peer group members send >>ORFs, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this would make the >>peer group processing advantages disappear. One of the big concerns from an RR perspective when deciding whether to deploy ORF. Jim Uttaro _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
