Re: [[e-mail]: Re: BGP4 stuff: Local Preference Computation]

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <v03007834ae550683b8a7@[152.160.213.42]>2]>, "John G. Scudder" writes:
> At 6:27 PM -0400 9/5/96, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> >It's interesting that we came up with similar suggestions, both
> >involving defining mandatory and discretionary separately.
> >
> >Unfortunately we're stuck with these two bit in the attribute,
> >well-known/optional, and mandatory/discretionary.  However we
> >wordsmith this we want to end up with the same value in the two bits
> >so we don't affect interoperability.
> 
> I don't follow.  There are just four flag bits:
> 
> Bit 0:  Optional/Well-Known
> Bit 1:  Transitive/Non-Transitive
> Bit 2:  Partial/(not)
> Bit 3:  Extended Length/(not)

Never mind.  I was thinking of Optional/Well-Known
Transitive/Non-Transitive and confusing this with
mandatory/discretionary since I was typing from memory of the spec.

> (Note that the def'n of bit 1 says "For well-known attributes, the
> Transitive bit must be set to 1."  But, LOCAL_PREF is both well-known (per
> the RFC) and clearly not transitive.  So I think that the quoted sentence
> should be deleted.)
> 
> There isn't a flag for mandatory/discretionary (not even sort-of), so I'm
> not worried about changing (or deleting) the term.

My mistake.

Thanks John.  Next time I'll check the spec before sending.

Curtis