Hello Rick, On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:17 PM, Rick Casarez <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > First off I will say I love this idea. It is addressing an issue I know some > of my team members and I have discussed before. We have configured our own > set of "DEPREF" policies (Inbound and Outbound) to address it and they align > with this for the most part. I am glad to read that :) > > The one difference is that since not all AS will allow LOCAL_PREF > manipulation we instead also use AS-PATH pre-pending outbound to external > peers to make NLRIs from the peer under maintenance less attractive. Since we > have multiple connections those routers not undergoing maintenance will > become preferred paths. When the case is . // links with the same AS . the neighbouring AS is not setting LP larger on paths received from the session you are bringing down, the effect will be the same. It's likely to be the case when you are tearing down one of the // sessions you have with your transit provider and your transit is not TE'ing you. When shutting down a peering link with a customer, you're never quite sure as well, customer likely decides how to get to you with LP. > Having said that your solution would be more elegant since we would be able > to create a single policy than configures the same community both directions > for the same result. I am always a fan of simplification if we can get there. > I would prefer it if it can be made part of a BGP implementation though > allowing us to forgo the manual configuration process we have now. It was the goal. Check with your favourite vendor if it does not, by any chance, already provide the feature ;) Cheers, Pierre. > ------------------- > Cheers, Rick > > Experiences not things. > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
