On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> 3. So the ability to remove the B to E link from the possible paths >>> available to reach A, enforcable by D, is actually a new feature in BGP. >> >> i don't think so, it's a 'feature' of bgp in general, isn't it? not 'new'. > > Not advertising something already exists --telling a remote AS that the > advertisement shouldn't exist because of policy is something you can't > do in BGP today, and hence is a new feature.
i don't think the case you outline is one of actually telling the remote-as that the path doesn't exist because of policy. the /fact of policy/ can be inferred, and I outlined 3 (or more) places you could infer at D that there was some policy decision happening. I don't think it's at all clear that you can determine where that policy removed the path though. > Of course, I don't quite believe that these signatures won't be used to > enforce NO_EXPORT along the way, either --it's much to simple to > implement, was included in the original proposal, is still being > discussed in private, etc. I suppose: "So what if this is used for no-export" or "so what if this is used to ignore no-export" ? The signatures are there so you can say: "The NLRI I see travelled along the ASPATH shown in the announcement." The policy in place isn't relevant to that... or I don't see that it's relevant. -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
