On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 15:35, Michel Py wrote: > Bob, > > > (1) I am thinking about something like the default deny at the end, > except that it would be at the beginning and would be effective even > though there is no prefix-list applied to the peer. Something that would > require a separate command and a confirmation to de-activate.
Why would > one want site-locals in BGP anyway? > I've worked on a scenario where BGP was the most appropriate routing protocol to use as an IGP(!) within a VPN scenario, due to its ability to handle the distribution of much larger number of routes verses the limitations of the IGP implementations available. Topology requirements prevented us from aggregating addressing enough for the IGP to support the number of routes we were dealing with. So, although probably fairly rare, there are reasons that BGP needs to support site-locals. I think I mentioned it before, BGP confederations could also be a reason to not to restrict site-local routes from being distributed by BGP. I think it would be fine to have (e|i)BGP filter out site-locals by default, but I certainly would want a knob to switch that filtering off. Mark. > Michel. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
