>> ===== >> 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 ???
MAY not, so it's a local option. This draft allows for two modes of operation (at least), one where the two routes can arrive on two different AS border routers, and one where they must arrive on the same AS border router. The second case is just like filtering the longer prefix at the inbound AS border router, the first keeps optimal exit points out of the local AS, while removing information once it doesn't matter to the flow of traffic. :-) Russ _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
