On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> The point is you've gone beyond the existence of the path here to the >>> rightful use of the path --and that is policy. > >> don't think so. > > Yes, you have. > > Because you've insisted on making the solution work per prefix, you've > moved the problem out of the realm of path validation and into the realm > of per prefix policy. Paths don't exist per prefix. Paths either exist > or don't. Only policies can tell you whether or not a particular path is > available for a particular prefix. >
clearly there's something I'm missing... if we remove the ideas of SIDR form the table, how does your picture change? how does the outcome change? it SEEMS (to me) that the situation is exactly the same... there's no idea of policy in protocol, there is only bgp, and the local decision by B to NOT send a route to E. -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
