Alvaro, >> >10.1.0.0/16 AS path 12 5 4 2
>10.1.1.0/24 AS path 12 1 > >The 12->1 path, 1 being a completely different origin AS than the >covering route's origin from 2, is lost when 10.1.1.0/24 is aggregated >into 10.1.0.0/16.
>
The path is not aggregated. Instead, the /24 would be marked as BOUNDED; the draft explains what that means:===== 3.3 Handling Marked Routes Within the AS Routes marked with the BOUNDED community MAY not be installed in the local RIB of routers within the AS. This optional step will reduce local RIB and forwarding table usage and volatility within the AS.
So if I learn /24 from different peer then /16 arrives on given ASBR or such /24 arrives via different ASBR (both cases would result /24 to have different next hop then /16) such /24 would not be marked as BOUNDED correct ?
If so I really fail why this filtering can not be done by inbound EBGP policy on such ASBR. Why do we need new draft and new communities ???
R. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
