Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D
Tony Li <tli@jnx.com> Fri, 30 August 1996 08:36 UTC
Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa12114; 30 Aug 96 4:36 EDT
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa12110; 30 Aug 96 4:36 EDT
Received: from merit.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03613; 30 Aug 96 4:36 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id EAA23749
for idr-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.5]) by
merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id EAA23744 for <bgp@merit.edu>;
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:04:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA07325
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for bgp@ans.net);
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:04:10 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2);
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:04:10 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1);
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:04:10 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 17:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199608300001.RAA00350@chimp.jnx.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
To: curtis@ans.net
Cc: curtis@ans.net, jgs@ieng.com, bgp@ans.net, yakov@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <199608292249.SAA05716@brookfield.ans.net> (message from Curtis
Villamizar on Thu, 29 Aug 1996 18:49:50 -0400)
Subject: Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D
X-Orig-Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
The algorithm is very simple.
get a new route in a BGP update
if the [r]oute passes policy filter criteria, compare to the current
best route for the AS using all criteria - local-pref, med, igp,
advertiser IP address
Ok, so what do I do after comparing? I _assume_ you mean that if the new
route is NOT better than the current best route from that neighboring AS,
then no further testing need be done. Otherwise, the new route is the best
route via the neighboring AS.
if the best route for the AS changed, compare it to the overall best
route using all the criteria except MED - local-pref, igp,
advertiser IP address
if the new route is better you have a new best route.
Simple to explain. Simple to implement. No loop.
Agreed. Now there are two problems: a) wordsmithing b) explaining the
functionality rather than the implementation.
I think we are in violent agreement on semantics.
Tony
- Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D rwoundy
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- RE: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D NITTMANN Michael (MSMail)
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Jessica Yu
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Tony Li
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D John G. Scudder
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Tony Li
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Tony Li
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D John G. Scudder
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Tony Li
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: FW: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Tony Li
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D Tony Li
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D John G. Scudder
- Re: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D John G. Scudder
- FW: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D NITTMANN Michael (MSMail)
- RE: FW: Addr: Re: BGP-4 - revised I-D NITTMANN Michael (MSMail)