nanog mailing list archives
Re: rfc4271 ORIGIN/path of default route, should the value be 0 or 2?
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:47:53 +0300
Hey,
I don’t believe that it has a functionality impact but I would like to know which one you think follows the RFC more closely.
Debatable, but: Internal is more accurate if you redistribute default from routing protocol, such as static. Unknown is more accurate if you just generate it in BGP, without having it. Functional difference is best-path selection algorithm. Origin can be used to bypass hot-potato policies of peers, by forcing them to carry packets longer inside their network. If your policy is hot-potato, then you should reset Origin on received external routes. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- rfc4271 ORIGIN/path of default route, should the value be 0 or 2? Drew Weaver (Jul 07)
- Re: rfc4271 ORIGIN/path of default route, should the value be 0 or 2? Saku Ytti (Jul 07)
- Re: rfc4271 ORIGIN/path of default route, should the value be 0 or 2? Olivier Benghozi (Jul 07)
- RE: rfc4271 ORIGIN/path of default route, should the value be 0 or 2? Drew Weaver (Jul 07)
- Re: rfc4271 ORIGIN/path of default route, should the value be 0 or 2? Olivier Benghozi (Jul 07)
- Re: rfc4271 ORIGIN/path of default route, should the value be 0 or 2? Saku Ytti (Jul 07)