On 4/8/26 08:32, Job Snijders wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 08:58:14AM +0000, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote:
which is current practice for example for our (DE-CIX) route servers.
Right, this is _exactly_ NOT a good practise, and its been extensively
documented why it isn't a good practise. Based on what you say, I have
to conclude that the DE-CIX route servers are configured in a way that
is inefficient and a burden for its peers. Why is it set up this way? :-)
Would it help your team if the document used stronger words?
I suggest saving your pitchforks and torches for more important things.
Keeping local marking of routes out of the global BGP tables has obvious
benefit.
Doing so internally is an operational choice. One that, as the sidrops
document highlights, generates churn. While the sidrops case is
specific, the problem is rather more general since many operators do all
sorts of dynamic things that involve internal marking of routes that can
result in internal churn.
Objecting to it harder will not make it go away. At best, we can
provide for mechanisms to make sure it doesn't show up in the global
tables and provide for practices and mechanisms that reduce the churn
internally.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
