Re: oops!
Radha Gowda <rxg@joplin.proteon.com> Wed, 24 May 1995 17:30 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06077;
24 May 95 13:30 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06073;
24 May 95 13:30 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11049;
24 May 95 13:30 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA57927
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net);
Wed, 24 May 1995 13:12:41 -0400
Message-Id: <199505241712.AA57927@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2);
Wed, 24 May 1995 13:12:41 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1);
Wed, 24 May 1995 13:12:41 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:08:52 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Radha Gowda <rxg@joplin.proteon.com>
Subject: Re: oops!
To: John Krawczyk <jkrawczy@baynetworks.com>
Cc: bgp@ans.net
In-Reply-To: <199505241544.AA38251@interlock.ans.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 24 May 1995, John Krawczyk wrote: > 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. Thanks! Infact, I overlooked that one while typing. I was really concerned about the common origin, and how that fit in the sequence. But then I should re-read the RFC, if something is not obvious ;-).