On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:09:28PM +0100, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 05:05:20PM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> > > The patch is OK, i will merge it. W.r.t. config option, what about 'allow
> > > bgp_local_pref'? That would make it consistent with BIRD name of the
> > > attri
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:00:42PM +0100, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> > > I think it is a useful feature. But rx/tx values seems like a bit
> > > overengineering. If for some obscure reason someone wants it just
> > > one way, it can easily be done in filters.
> >
> > Good point, I agree. Here's v2,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 05:05:20PM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> > The patch is OK, i will merge it. W.r.t. config option, what about 'allow
> > bgp_local_pref'? That would make it consistent with BIRD name of the
> > attribute and also with other options like 'default bgp_local_pref'.
>
> I h
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 06:08:41AM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> > I think it is a useful feature. But rx/tx values seems like a bit
> > overengineering. If for some obscure reason someone wants it just
> > one way, it can easily be done in filters.
>
> Good point, I agree. Here's v2, also wi
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 12:57:29AM +0100, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> > I've attached a patch that allows (selectively) exchanging LOCAL_PREF
> > with eBGP peers.
> >
> > The BGP RFC (RFC4271) says that you shouldn't send LOCAL_PREF to eBGP
> > peers, but most modern BGP implementations have an overr
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 05:41:07AM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I've attached a patch that allows (selectively) exchanging LOCAL_PREF
> with eBGP peers.
>
> The BGP RFC (RFC4271) says that you shouldn't send LOCAL_PREF to eBGP
> peers, but most modern BGP implementations have an o
No, your example with the existing variable is perfect. Thanks!
Kind regards,
Job
On 18 Feb 2017, 17:34 +0100, Lennert Buytenhek , wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 05:20:15PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> Goedemiddag!
>
>
> > Can you make the LOCAL_PREF something that can be matched o
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 05:20:15PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> Hi,
Goedemiddag!
> Can you make the LOCAL_PREF something that can be matched on? Example:
>
> if ! bgp_path.local_pref = 80 then {
> bgp_local_pref = 100;
> }
>
> This way one can limit the influence of the adjacent neighbor to e
Hi,
Can you make the LOCAL_PREF something that can be matched on? Example:
if ! bgp_path.local_pref = 80 then {
bgp_local_pref = 100;
}
This way one can limit the influence of the adjacent neighbor to either 80 or
100 (default).
Kind regards,
Job
On 18 Feb 2017, 17:07 +0100, Lennert Buytenhe
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:27:22PM +0100, Tim Weippert wrote:
> Hi Lennert,
Hello!
> > I've attached a patch that allows (selectively) exchanging LOCAL_PREF
> > with eBGP peers.
>
> a perfect timing. Yesterday i thought about that ..
>
> > The BGP RFC (RFC4271) says that you shouldn't send L
Hi Lennert,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 05:41:07AM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I've attached a patch that allows (selectively) exchanging LOCAL_PREF
> with eBGP peers.
a perfect timing. Yesterday i thought about that ..
> The BGP RFC (RFC4271) says that you shouldn't send LOCAL_PR
Hello!
I've attached a patch that allows (selectively) exchanging LOCAL_PREF
with eBGP peers.
The BGP RFC (RFC4271) says that you shouldn't send LOCAL_PREF to eBGP
peers, but most modern BGP implementations have an override to allow
doing this anyway, and it is very useful in some scenarios, for
12 matches
Mail list logo
