On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 05:38:57AM +0000, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
> > Does this technique make routers self-aware? What exactly is meant
> > with the word 'intelligence' in this context?
>
> 'Logic' may be a better choice than 'intelligence' in this context?
> For a brief description of the algorithm, please see:
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg03699.html
Thank you for the clarification.
I have a second scenario that might be a challenge for Enhanced
Feasible-Path uRPF.
ASCII ART:
+---+
+-+AS1+--+
| +---+ |
| |
| |
+-+-+ +-+-+
|AS2| |AS3|
+---+-+ +--++
| |
| |
+-+-+ |
|AS4+---+
+---+
AS4 is a customer of AS2 and AS3. AS4 ingests a full routing table from
both AS2 and AS3 (and as such as two paths to AS4).
A common traffic engineering practise visible in the Default-Free Zone
is to block unbounded propagation of one's prefixes. For instance, AS4
might use a BGP Community provided by AS2 to block propagation of the
AS4 prefixes to AS1 via AS2. The equivalent would be that AS4 attaches
NO_EXPORT on the announcements to AS2, but not on the announcement to
AS3.
AS1 will receive traffic sourced by the prefixes from AS4 via both
AS2_AS4 and AS3_AS4.
Kind regards,
Job
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
