RE: [Idr] ORF

Hi Jefrrey,

 My comments inline.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com <mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com> ] 
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 11:45 AM
To: Potti, Rajesh [BL60:SF21:EXCH]
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] ORF

Rajesh,

>From the draft:
:   The remote peer should consider only those routes whose Communities
:   attribute has at least one Community in common with the Communities
:   list specified in the ORF.

Thus, if the route has no communities, it can not have any communities in
common (at least one) with the ORF.

Put a different way, this is an set intersection operation.  If the
resulting set of the route's communities intersected with the community orf
is the empty set, it doesn't match.

If the intersection is not empty, it is either denied or permitted,
according to the Match component. If the resulting set is empty, is the
route filtered. If ORF capability for community ORF was not negotiated, the
route would not have been filtered. If the route is
Filtered on the intersection being empty, would it try to look at other ORFs
such as prefix list ORF or ASPATH ORF, which were negotiated. I mean, it
does not match any community ORF entry, but it matches a prefix-list ORF
entry from the neighbor.

Rajesh

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 05:27:07PM -0500, Rajesh Potti wrote:
> 
> The draft "cooperative Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4"
> 
> (draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-11.txt) does not specify the action - 
> PERMIT or DENY, if the to be
> Advertised route  Does not have a community, or if the route has a
community
> which 
> does not match any Of the community ORF entries received. The prefix-list
> ORF filter draft 
> specifies a wildcard Match, which is not the case with the community orf.

> 
> Rajesh

> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr> 

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies