Re: BGP-4+
Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com> Mon, 23 December 1996 14:06 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa15257; 23 Dec 96 9:06 EST
Received: from merit.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08593; 23 Dec 96 9:06 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.4/merit-2.0) id IAA07719
for idr-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:43:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.5]) by
merit.edu (8.8.4/merit-2.0) with SMTP id IAA07714 for <bgp@merit.edu>;
Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:43:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA25205
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for bgp@ans.net);
Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:43:09 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1);
Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:43:09 -0500
Message-Id: <199612231343.FAA05649@puli.cisco.com>
To: "John W. Stewart III" <jstewart@metro.isi.edu>
Cc: 6bone@isi.edu, bgp@ans.net
Subject: Re: BGP-4+
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 22 Dec 96 18:15:16 EST."
<199612222315.AA12463@metro.isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 96 05:43:06 PST
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
John, > i have a follow-up question to one of the things dennis asked, > but i have a general question as well > > the UPDATE message looks like: > > +-----------------------------------------------------+ > | Unfeasible Routes Length (2 octets) | > +-----------------------------------------------------+ > | Withdrawn Routes (variable) | > +-----------------------------------------------------+ > | Total Path Attribute Length (2 octets) | > +-----------------------------------------------------+ > | Path Attributes (variable) | > +-----------------------------------------------------+ > | Network Layer Reachability Information (variable) | > +-----------------------------------------------------+ > > let's say that i'm an implementation with these extensions and > i want to advertise an IPv6 route over an ebgp session with > just the mandatory well-known attributes ORIGIN="IGP", > AS-PATH="3561" and NEXT-HOP="10.1.1.1". what do i put in the > "NLRI" field of the UPDATE message (not the NLRI component of > the attribute)? as i read it, the proposed extension doesn't > include the ability to specify attributes within the > MP_REACH_NLRI attribute, so the "Total Path Attribute Length" > and "Path Attributes" fields of the UPDATE message need to be > used. the spec says: > > >> > >> Total Path Attribute Length: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> A value of 0 indicates that no Network Layer Reachability > >> Information field is present in this UPDATE message. > >> > > so conversely a non-zero value in "Total Path Attribute Length" > means that NLRI *is* present. since i need to associate > attributes with the IPv6 route, "Total Path Attribute Length" > needs to be non-zero, so what goes in NLRI if i don't have any > IP4-related thing to do in this message? The converse is not true (and perhaps this should be clarified in the BGP-4 spec). That is, "Total Path Attribute Length" may be non-zero *and* no NLRI may be present. This way one could have NLRI carried only in the MP_REACH_NLRI and have all the other necessary attributes as well. Yakov.
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Susan Hares
- Re: BGP-4+ Susan Hares
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Brandon Black
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Dorian R. Kim
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Tony Bates
- BGP-4+ Dave Katz
- Re: BGP-4+ Dimitry Haskin
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Brad Smith
- Re: BGP-4+ Dorian R. Kim
- Re: BGP-4+ bmanning
- Re: BGP-4+ Tony Li
- Re: BGP-4+ Brad Smith
- Re: BGP-4+ Dorian R. Kim
- Re: BGP-4+ Brad Smith
- Re: BGP-4+ Curtis Villamizar
- Re: BGP-4+ Curtis Villamizar
- Re: BGP-4+ Curtis Villamizar
- Re: BGP-4+ Curtis Villamizar
- Re: BGP-4+ Dennis Ferguson
- Re: BGP-4+ Brandon Black
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Dennis Ferguson
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ John W. Stewart III
- Re: BGP-4+ Yakov Rekhter
- Re: BGP-4+ Geert Jan de Groot
- Re: BGP-4+ Brad Smith
- Re: BGP-4+ [QOS et al] John G. Scudder
- Re: BGP-4+ Paul Traina