On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:35:29PM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
There is also a question of how BGP attribute on non-BGP route should be interpreted by BGP protocol - either like BGP routes, or like non-BGP routes with the attribute assigned by BGP export filter. I would prefer the second behavior - the difference is in implicit modifications of current attributes (like bgp_next_hop), in the first variant it would be modified as it is from BGP route, in the second variant it is not modified as all (because it is set as a local policy). Therefore if you, e.g., originate a static route and export it to a BGP protocol, it wouldn't make a difference if you modify BGP attributes in the import filter of the static protocol or in the export filter of the BGP protocol.
I think all routes should be handled the same way, without regard for the source protocol.
Well, this is nice idea, but BGP standard (RFC 4271) specifies for route propagation different behavior based on whether the route was received originally from iBGP or from eBGP. So even if you want that non-BGP routes should be handled like BGP ones, you would have to specify whether like iBGP or like eBGP. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: santiago@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."