Re: Link-state EGP

[Saku Ytti via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 at 13:09, <nanog () immibis com> wrote:
>
> > No, you can't, because your upstream's shortest route leads back to you and that's a loop. Any difference in route 
> > calculation between two nodes in a link-state protocol is likely to create a loop.
>
> The sender will know if it loops or not, if they can choose a
> non-shortest path that will not loop. I.e. LFA, loop free alternative.

To give a specific example.

I am AS10
I have upstream transit AS2[123]
I have downstream stubby customer AS3[123]

For every other AS than AS10, AS3[123] I can freely choose any
permutation of AS2[123] to send traffic to, _per-prefx_.

Let's say I see /some/ AS42 path through each of AS2[123] now I can
have a local egress policy for each of AS42 prefix to send it through
any permutation of AS2[123] ECMP or not.


In fact BGP topology is mostly tree, it's mostly non-loopy so LFA
would be mostly there already. And this is so, because inherent
business reasons (upstream/dowstream) and because we actually have
pretty poor loop prevention hygiene, we filter RIB with different
policies, some dropping more-specifics some not dropping them. Which
from theory POV is a big no-no, as now you can't guarantee you don't
loop. But we do it, because we understand how _this_ implementation in
practice looks, and we don't use the solutions that. don't work in
_this_ implementation.

Infact even internally in our AS, we would almost certainly loop if we
didn't do MPLS, because due to specific policy and TE reasons we
filter advertisements differently in _iBGP-IN_, this is also kind of
big no-no, and if we did do IP lookup in core transit I cannot at all
guarantee we wouldn't loop, but because we can guarantee that the edge
decision is honored all the way to the other edge, we can get away
with it.

The ability to use policy to affect egressing traffic wouldn't be that
much affected. The ability to affect ingress traffic would be
radically different and we would risk that we walk towards a future
where we are suddenly looking at a very large number of ASn, because
perceived or real needs for disjoint advertisements. So my confidence
remains very low that this would be worthwhile, while certainly we
could make it go.



-- 
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/XVYYWVGYDDP6PZ3RJTLNCGMZI3E4WRRQ/