unavailable VGs...
Robert Woody Woodburn <woody@sparta.com> Fri, 22 May 1992 18:33 UTC
Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02285;
22 May 92 14:33 EDT
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07612;
22 May 92 14:40 EDT
Received: from PIZZA.BBN.COM by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07594;
22 May 92 14:40 EDT
Received: from pizza by PIZZA.BBN.COM id aa06705; 22 May 92 14:30 EDT
Received: from BBN.COM by PIZZA.BBN.COM id aa06701; 22 May 92 14:29 EDT
Received: from SPARTA.COM by BBN.COM id aa09303; 22 May 92 14:30 EDT
Received: by sparta.com (5.65/1.34) id AA09425; Fri, 22 May 92 14:35:16 -0400
Date: Fri, 22 May 92 14:35:16 -0400
From: Robert Woody Woodburn <woody@sparta.com>
Message-Id: <9205221835.AA09425@sparta.com>
To: idpr-wg@bbn.com
Subject: unavailable VGs...
Cc: `@sparta.com
In the RID Dynamic Update message, isn't the list of unavailable VGs superfluous since they can be derived from the dynamic update combined with the configuration update? In the old route synthesis implementation, it was ignored, and now that I'm about to rehash the code, I'm wondering if it is ever really needed by anybody. Should the PCP protocol be getting a copy of the list to determine the validity of active policy routes? I don't think so, because if a VG became unreachable, the path would be torn down anyway. wood y
- unavailable VGs... Robert Woody Woodburn