Rare project developers

[Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <>]

:-D. It’s just the future roadmap. There’s nothing to hide. :)

 

Also, I don’t expect customers to jump from LU to CT immediately. ;-)

 

So, CT stays a complementing companion to LU for the time being, instead of replacing it. 😊

 

Thanks

Kaliraj

From: mc36 <>
Date: Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:50 PM
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <>, <>, Natrajan Venkataraman <>, Anton Elita <>, Frédéric LOUI <>
Cc: Simon Leinen <>, Reshma Das <>, Krzysztof Szarkowicz <>, Alexander Gall <>
Subject: Re: [rare-dev] RARE/freeRtr status @EANTC

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


ommmmmmmm a way soo sorry, now the list heard a way more than expected, thanks for the transparency! :)

thanks,

cs


On 3/19/23 04:46, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai wrote:
> That   s exactly right thinking Csaba.
>
> Just that, today Junos BGP-CT implementation doesn   t support carrying best-effort tunnels, installing them in inet fib, etc. (So that PE1<->PE2 control plane packets can take the
> CT LSP).
>
> IOW, BGP-CT learnt routes can be used as nexthop to resolve other BGP routes, but cannot themselves be installed in FIB.
>
> This is a TODO item in Junos. Once that is implemented, then LU can be avoided. You are right.
>
> Thanks
>
> Kaliraj
>
> *From: *mc36 <>
> *Date: *Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:35 PM
> *To: * <>, Natrajan Venkataraman <>, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <>, Anton Elita <>,
> Fr  d  ric LOUI <>
> *Cc: *Simon Leinen <>, Reshma Das <>, Krzysztof Szarkowicz <>, Alexander Gall <>
> *Subject: *Re: [rare-dev] RARE/freeRtr status @EANTC
>
> only one question, is rhere a specific reason that the best effort is not just an other color in the bgp-ct?
>
> btw im fine with the bgp-lu for that, but then freerouter would not need an additinal process then?
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>

Juniper Business Use Only