[bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 14 August 2002 00:10 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26259 for <bmwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA27133; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:08:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA27107 for <bmwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:08:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rip.psg.com (rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26212 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:06:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rip.psg.com.psg.com) by rip.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17elhg-0004fz-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:00 -0700
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Message-Id: <E17elhg-0004fz-00@rip.psg.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:00 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt
Sender: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> > 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. > 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... :) > 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? > 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/ 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? ... > 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. ... > 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? > 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? > 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... > 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? > 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"? > > Discussion: > Such a router will always speak eBGP and may speak iBGP. e/iBGP have not been defined, BTW. _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Randy Bush
- [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Randy Bush
- [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Howard C. Berkowitz
- [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Howard C. Berkowitz
- Re: [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Randy Bush
- Re: [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Howard C. Berkowitz
- Re: [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Randy Bush
- Re: [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Alex Zinin
- Re: [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Howard C. Berkowitz
- Re: [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Howard C. Berkowitz
- Re: [bmwg] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-03.txt Randy Bush