[169637] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP attributes through IGP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blake Dunlap)
Thu Mar 6 22:54:10 2014
In-Reply-To: <B2C1BAE1-021D-435A-9B22-5B56F4FA1BA4@gdt.id.au>
From: Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 21:53:13 -0600
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Mpls, GRE, line gun...
At some point, you want to stop beginning technical designs with "Doctor!
Doctor! It hurts when I do this. What can I do?"
The answer doesn't generally change, no matter how many times it's asked.
-Blake
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Glen Turner <gdt@gdt.id.au> wrote:
>
> Saku Ytti wrote:
> >
> > It's essentially abusing (some what well-defined and interoperable
> abuse) 32b
> > tag field for this purpose.
>
> That's pretty much what the OSPF tag and the BGP's synchronisation with
> OSPF were originally intended for.
>
> However it's pretty much a design misfeature and you'd be happier with
> iBGP over a tunnel
>
> -glen
