Re: editorial fixes

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Yakov:

The FSM revision I posted as gotten approval from Russ.
We are awaiting Alex's review of the text.  That should
go on your list if Alex approves.

Sue

At 03:11 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>Folks,
>
>In the absence of any objections I will incorporate the
>changes suggested below.
>
>Yakov.
>------- Forwarded Message
>
>Date:    Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:28:48 +0000
>From:    "Tom Petch" <[e-mail]>
>To:      "Yakov Rekhter" <[e-mail]>
>cc:      <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: bgp4-17 Section 9
>
>Combining NEXT_HOP resolution into one place (5.1.3) I
>suggest
>
>
>Revised 9.1.2 para 7
>
>The local speaker MUST determine the immediate next-hop
>address from the NEXT_HOP attribute of the selected route
>(see section 5.1.3).
>If either the immediate next hop or the IGP cost to the
>NEXT_HOP (where the NEXT_HOP is resolved through an IGP
>route) changes, Phase 2: Route Selection should be performed
>again.
>
>- ----------------------------
>
>Revised 5.1.3
>
>    The NEXT_HOP attribute is used by the BGP speaker to
>determine the
>    actual outbound interface and immediate next-hop address
>that should
>    be used to forward transit packets to the associated
>destinations.
>
>    The immediate next-hop address is determined by
>performing a
>    recursive route lookup operation for the IP address in
>the NEXT_HOP
>    attribute using the contents of the Routing Table,
>- -----------revised text follows ------------
>selecting one entry if multiple entries of equal cost exist.
>The Routing Table entry which resolves the NEXT_HOP
>attribute will always specify the outbound interface.
>If the entry also specifies the next-hop address, this
>address should be used as the immediate next-hop address for
>packet forwarding.
>If the entry specifies an attached subnet (and does not
>specify a next-hop address), then the address in the
>NEXT_HOP attribute should be used as the immediate next-hop
>address.
>- ------------end of revision----------
>
>I (still) believe 'resolving route' is not at all clear,
>hence my use of the form
>'The Routing Table entry which resolves the NEXT_HOP
>attribute ...'
>But I am less hung up on whether we mention entry or use
>path or drop 'Routing Table'.
>I take the point about there being a limit as to how much
>we can say about routing tables; I tend to regard RFC1812 as
>the sine qua none.
>
>
>
>Tom Petch, Network Consultant
>[e-mail]
>
>- -----Original Message-----
>From: Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>
>To: Tom Petch <[e-mail]>
>Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>Date: 14 January 2002 20:15
>Subject: Re: bgp4-17 Section 9
>
>
> >>
> >> 9.1.2 Route selection now allows for the best route in
> >> Loc-RIB not to be placed in the Routing table; how does
>this
> >> impact on the principle (2 Introduction) that a BGP
>Speaker
> >> should only advertise routes it itself uses?  Is it
>enough
> >> for the route to be in Loc-RIB and not in the Routing
>Table?
> >>
> >> I believe the paragraph on immediate next hop should
> >> cross-reference the one in 5.1.3; and the latter allows
> >> route lookup to resolve to a subnet and not an immediate
> >> next hop address, a possibility 9.1.2 appears not to
>cater
> >> for.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the information on immediate next hop in 5.1.3
>and 9
> >> should be combined in one place; 5.1.3 would be my
> >> preference.
> >
> >Please propose the specific changes.
> >
> >Yakov.
>
>
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message