oops!
John Krawczyk <jkrawczy@baynetworks.com> Wed, 24 May 1995 16:09 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04577;
24 May 95 12:09 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04568;
24 May 95 12:09 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09322;
24 May 95 12:07 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA38251
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net);
Wed, 24 May 1995 11:44:05 -0400
Message-Id: <199505241544.AA38251@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-4);
Wed, 24 May 1995 11:44:05 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-3);
Wed, 24 May 1995 11:44:05 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2);
Wed, 24 May 1995 11:44:05 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 11:43:56 EDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John Krawczyk <jkrawczy@baynetworks.com>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1);
Wed, 24 May 1995 11:44:05 -0400
To: bgp@ans.net
Subject: oops!
Reply-To: jkrawczy@baynetworks.com
Sorry if my last post generates a lot of confusion - the result SEQ
in Radha's example had the order of the ASes wrong and I propagated
the mistake. So to correct myself...
Radha's text:
[SEQ #3 0002 0005 0004]
==> [SEQ #3 0001 0004 0002] [SET #2 0003 0005]
[SEQ #3 0002 0003 0004]
This violates 9.2.4.2 because _0004_ cannot precede 0005 or 0003. But
it is also illegal to put 0004 in from of 0002 in the SEQ.
The alternatives are therefore:
[SEQ #2 0001 0002] [SET #3 0003 0005 0004]
[SEQ #2 0001 0002] [SET #2 0003 0005] [SEQ #1 0004]
And the lesson is not to answer email the day after a vacation day :)
(by that rule, I should not be sending this either :).
-jj