Re: [Idr] BGP Next Hop attribute and MP_REACH_NLRI next hop field

Kalpesh Zinjuwadia <kzinjuwadia@force10networks.com> Tue, 29 April 2008 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F0A28C281; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA0528C304 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dxe4QCdhTshG for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.force10networks.com (corp.force10networks.com [64.186.164.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A01C28C281 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.force10networks.com ([10.11.0.221]) by mx.force10networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:22:47 -0700
Received: from exch7-sjc-fe.force10networks.com ([10.11.0.87]) by mx.force10networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:22:47 -0700
Received: from EXCH-CLUSTER-09.force10networks.com ([10.11.10.113]) by exch7-sjc-fe.force10networks.com ([10.11.0.87]) with mapi; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:22:47 -0700
From: Kalpesh Zinjuwadia <kzinjuwadia@force10networks.com>
To: 'Rohan Sen' <senrohan@gmail.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:22:46 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Idr] BGP Next Hop attribute and MP_REACH_NLRI next hop field
Thread-Index: AciqKt/7NJPCFomLSCy7GIFWPfN5vwAAhlfg
Message-ID: <2EE638FFD18B294395AE688204CE7E6F1DFC1B53@EXCH-CLUSTER-09.force10networks.com>
References: <8320074d0804291159i7409cdcbn61d9889564becd86@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8320074d0804291159i7409cdcbn61d9889564becd86@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Apr 2008 19:22:47.0008 (UTC) FILETIME=[67FF9600:01C8AA2E]
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP Next Hop attribute and MP_REACH_NLRI next hop field
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2122648051=="
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Does the update in your case have any ipv4-unicast NLRIs (outside the MP_REACH attr)?

Per RFC 2858 (sec 2; last para), if there are no NLRIs (except the ones in MP_REACH_NLRI) to be sent, Next-hop attribute should not be sent. Receiver should ignore Next-hop attribute, if received.

If MP_REACH_NLRI is carrying IPv4 routes, the Next-hop in this attribute itself should be used. Having the Next-hop path attribute should not change anything for these routes.

Thanks,
Kalpesh

From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rohan Sen
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:59 AM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] BGP Next Hop attribute and MP_REACH_NLRI next hop field

Hi All,

For cases in BGP (like VPN) where MP_REACH_NLRI attribute is used to carry route information in an Update message, we also specify the next hop for the prefixes inside this attribute itself. But if we are sending IPv4 routes inside MP_REACH_NLRI->NLRI field, and we also add the standard Next Hop path attribute then will that carry any special meaning? My confusion is that whether the NLRI path attribute can coexist with MP_REACH_NLRI attribute or not. If yes, then in which scenario.

Any help in this regard would be highly appreciated.

--
thanks,
Rohan Sen
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr