And just to update, those drafts have made it into RFC 4271 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4271.txt
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Danny McPherson Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 > treated, but > 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 > MED" > 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: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-26.txt 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 behaviors. -danny
