[89614] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mutual Redistribution
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Tue Mar 28 16:38:28 2006
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:37:48 -0500
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Mark Smith <nanog@fa1c52f96c54f7450e1ffb215f29991e.nosense.org>
Cc: Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20060329064922.4aca65cf.nanog@fa1c52f96c54f7450e1ffb215f29991e.nosense.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Mark Smith wrote:
> One better
> solution is to take advantage of route tags or labels. When a route is
> redistributed you tag it, and then when mutual redistribution occurs in
> the other direction, you exclude routes that have that tag. You'd need
> to do this in both redistribution directions, with different tags to
> prevent loops in either direction. This method doesn't rely on the
> behaviour of always increase metrics, so it would be more robust.
>
> HTH,
> Mark.
>
I dont believe popular vendors implementations of rip propogate tags.
At least the last time I tried loop prevention with that, it didnt work.
