RE: Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3

"Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Fri, 06 September 2002 14:42 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05645 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:42:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 04925912E9; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:43:34 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 953E0912ED; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484A6912E9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:43:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2F3F75DE4E; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:43:29 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB755DDCA for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:43:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15687; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:43:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18994; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:43:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <R68QN849>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:43:26 -0400
Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2DD3@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>
From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>
To: 'Mathew Richardson' <mrr@nexthop.com>, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:43:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Mathew:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 'Mathew Richardson' [mailto:mrr@nexthop.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:34 AM
> To: Abarbanel, Benjamin
> Cc: idr@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3
> 
> 
> > Abarbanel, Benjamin <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> [Fri, 
> Sep 06, 2002 at 10:26:59AM -0400]:
> >Mathew:
> >
> > 
> >> >
> >> >I'm looking for clarification to wording in section 9.1.3 
> >> Phase 3: Route
> >> >Dessemination of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt.
> >> >
> >> >My understanding is that a BGP route should not be 
> >> advertised to a peer if
> >> >that route is not also in the Routing Table (e.g. FIB).  I 
> >> was looking for
> >> >wording to support this, but am now starting to second 
> guess myself.
> >> >
> >
> >What about the case where the best BGP route for a given 
> destination is
> >rejected/
> >preempted from the routing table by a higher preferenced 
> IGP, Static, etc.,
> >route which is really used for forwarding?
> 
> This route would have to be in the Loc-RIB, and would replace 
> all other
> routes in the Loc-RIB.  Whether this actually happens or not 
> is a matter
> of local-policy.
> 
Agree, the Loc-RIB routes are only BGP ones, therefore this 
route will pass all policy filters and be added. But, ---->

> >Somewhere in section 9.1.x, Do we want to mention the fact 
> that the best 
> >Loc-RIB BGP route for a given destination is still 
> advertised to outgoing 
> >peers via the Adj-RIB-out after it passes the outbound 
> policy filtering,
> >even though it is not really used for forwarding?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You're talking about the case where a BGP route to some destination D
> has been installed in the Loc-RIB, but no route to 
> destination D has been
> added to the forwarding table?  I'm not sure we want to 
> elaborate on that
> case, except, perhaps, to disallow it.

Wrong, there is an IGP or static route to destination D in the routing
table as the best forwarding route, the BGP route to destination D that is
installed in the Loc-RIB with a different Next Hop router is not used for
forwarding. That is the inconsistency I am talking about.

Ben



> 
> mrr
>