mailing list archives
RE: metric 0 vs 'no metric at all'
From: "Doug Marschke" <doug () ipath net>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:07:45 +0100
And just to update, those drafts have made it into RFC 4271
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:49 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: metric 0 vs 'no metric at all'
On Jan 3, 2006, at 1:03 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
So the spec is fuzzy about how "no MED vs. MED=0" should be
vendors seem to largely agree to "no MED == MED 0". I know of no
deviation, except the old ERX bug which got fixed (ERX treated "no
as best, even better than MED=0 - contrary to documentation).
I recall some earlier implementations from "well known" vendors that
had varying behavior for MED processing as well.
Fortunately, the update to RFC 1771:
is considerably more explicit about this behavior, as well as a slew
of other previously-left-to-the-implementation items ironed out
through a great deal of implementation and deployment experience.
The "BGP Experience" and "BGP MED Considerations" Internet-
drafts provide a good bit of additional insight into some of these
- RE: metric 0 vs 'no metric at all' Doug Marschke (Feb 17)