[bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt

["Howard C. Berkowitz" <[e-mail]>]

Individual responses again.

>From: Alex Zinin <[e-mail]>
>
>>  hit pause.  let's see them fix this first.  i knew it needed fresh
>>  eyes.  thanks!
>
>OK, here's some more I got:
>
>>  2.3.1 Default Route
>>
>>     Definition:
>>                A Default Route is a route entry that can match any
>>                prefix.
>
>Any prefix or any address? I would expect the later.

Valid point.

>
>>  If a router does not have a route for a particular
>
>"doesn't have a more specific route"? i.e., the default
>is a route, and a matching route, in fact...
>
>>                packet's destination address, it forwards this packet to
>>                the next hop in the default route entry, provided its
>>                Forwarding Table (Forwarding Information Base (FIB)
>>                contains one.
>
>"_the_ next hop" assumes single path, i.e., I can have multiple
>next hops for the default.
>How can I forward a packet to a part of a data structure (route entry)?
>"next-hop router" is probably meant, right?
>
>>  The notation for a default route for IPv4 is
>>                0.0.0.0/0 and for IPv6 it is 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 or ::/0.
>
>0/0 is another one for v4
>
>...
>>  2.3.2 Default Free Routing Table
>>
>>
>>     Definition:
>>                A default free routing table has no default routes and is
>>                typically seen in routers in the core or top tier of
>>                routers in the network.
>>
>>     Discussion:
>>                The term originates from the concept that routers at the
>>                core or top tier of the Internet will not be configured
>>                with a default route (Notation in IPv4 0.0.0.0/0 and in
>>                IPv6 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 or ::/0).
>
>no need to repeat the notation.
>
>>  Thus they will forward
>>                every prefix to a specific next hop based on the longest
>>                match on the IP addresses.
>
>forward "prefix"? hmmm... :)

OOops. Packet.

>
>
>>                Default free routing table size is commonly used as an
>>                indicator of the magnitude of reachable Internet address
>>                space. However, default free routing tables may also
>>                include routes internal to the router's AS.
>
>...
>
>>  2.3.3 Full Default Free Table
>>
>>     Definition:
>>                A full default free table is a set of BGP routes generally
>>                accepted to be the complete set of BGP routes collectively
>>                announced by the complete set of autonomous systems making
>>                up the public Internet.
>
>Shouldn't this definition say something about there being no
>default route?

Agreed.

>
>>  Due to the dynamic nature of the
>>                Internet, the exact size and composition of this table may
>>                vary slightly depending where and when it is observed.
>
>s/may vary slightly/will vary/

Agreed, more or less, thinking of Gilbert and Sullivan's "Never? 
What? Hardly ever!"

>
>Also, the different view in different places will not be
>because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, but because
>of the properties of the protocol.
>
>>     Discussion:
>>                Several investigators ([17],[18],[19]) measure this on a
>>                daily and/or weekly basis; June 2001 measurements put the
>>                table at approximately 105,000 routes, growing
>>                exponentially.
>
>Seems not to be the case any more. Maybe we should avoid putting
>time-sensitive data here?

Valid enough -- maybe orders of magnitude. I'm tempted to go to 
pidgin and say "one, two, MANY."

>
>...
>
>>  2.3.4 Full Provider Internal Table
>>
>>     Definition:
>>                A full provider internal table is a superset of the full
>>                routing table that contains infrastructure and non-
>>                aggregated routes.
>
>changing the name to "full provider-internal table" might be
>a good idea: otherwise, "... internal table" being bigger
>than the full routing table hits hard at first sight.

OK.  Will look at more wordsmithing.

>
>...
>>  2.4 Classes of BGP-Speaking Routers
>  >
>>     A given router may perform more than one of the following functions,
>>     based on its logical location in the network.
>>
>>  2.4.1 Provider Edge Router
>>
>>     Definition:
>>                A provider edge router is a router at the edge of a
>>                provider's network, configured to speak BGP, which peers
>>                with a BGP speaking router operated by the end-user.
>
>Shouldn't this def talk about an _external_ BGP session?

Confused -- I would expect an edge router to speak eBGP to the end 
user AS and/or upstreams and peers.

>
>>  The
>>                traffic that transits this router may be destined to, or
>>                originate from non-contiguous autonomous systems.
>
>Why is this important for this definition, especially considering
>the "may"? Should it be moved to the Discussion section? What is
>"non-contiguous autonomous systems", btw?

The latter being an AS to which MED will not apply.

>
>>     Discussion:
>>                Such a router will always speak eBGP and may speak iBGP.
>...
>>  2.4.2 Subscriber Edge Router
>>
>>     Definition:
>>                A subscriber edge router is a BGP-speaking router
>>                belonging to an end user organization that may be multi-
>>                homed, and which carries traffic only to and from that end
>>                user AS.
>
>Strange. I would expect this definition to be symmetric to
>the one of a PE, but we can see even some terminology
>inconsistencies...

Not quite sure where you are going here by "symmetrical".  We weren't 
explicitly trying to tie to PE and CE.

>
>>     Discussion:
>>                Such a router will always speak eBGP and may speak iBGP.
>
>The eBGP part seems to belong in the definition...
>
>>  2.4.3 Inter-provider Border Router
>>
>>     Definition:
>>                An inter-provider border router is a BGP speaking router
>>                which maintains BGP sessions with another BGP speaking
>>                router in another provider AS.
>
>Can it have more than one session?

Sure.

>
>>  Traffic transiting this
>>                router may be directed to or from another AS that has no
>>                direct connectivity with this provider's AS.
>
>"directed to or from"... maybe "originated in or destined for"?

No objection.

>
>>
>>     Discussion:
>>                Such a router will always speak eBGP and may speak iBGP.
>
>e/iBGP have not been defined, BTW.

Noted for wordsmithing.

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg