[PATCH RFC v2] Preserve BGP attributes from non-BGP protocols

[Ondrej Zajicek]

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 at 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."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/attachments/20130523/358698e9/attachment-0001.asc>