IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: processing order of reach/unreach in rfc2858bis

Alex Zinin <azinin@nexsi.com> Wed, 20 February 2002 20:48 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA01452 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:48:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 9203A912B0; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:47:51 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5FBA0912B1; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:47:51 -0500 (EST)
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 4860F912B0 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:47:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1A6CC5DDB1; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:47:46 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from mail.nexsi.com (system134.nexsi.com [66.35.197.134]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B954A5DD9C for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:47:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from khonsu.sw.nexsi.com (khonsu.sw.nexsi.com [192.168.104.145] (may be forged)) by mail.nexsi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01695; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:45:58 -0800
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:47:06 -0800
From: Alex Zinin <azinin@nexsi.com>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal
Reply-To: Alex Zinin <azinin@nexsi.com>
Organization: Nexsi Systems
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <37176077676.20020220124706@nexsi.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
Cc: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>, idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: processing order of reach/unreach in rfc2858bis
In-Reply-To: <20020220152952.S22759@nexthop.com>
References: <jhaas@nexthop.com> <20020220200541.30BA415D3C1@popserv1.redback.com> <20020220152952.S22759@nexthop.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Jeff, Enke

 To get a complete picture here, maybe it's a good
 idea to collect info on how people order the MP_*
 attributes when sending a message...

 However, I'm feeling that we might not be able to
 find a solution satisfying most deployed implementations
 and might finally have to go with Yakov's option 3...

-- 
Alex Zinin

Wednesday, February 20, 2002, 12:29:52 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 12:05:40PM -0800, Enke Chen wrote:
>> > MP_REACH_NLRI is enumerated before MP_UNREACH_NLRI in the path attributes.
>> 
>> It may not be the actual order in an update message.

> Agreed.

>> The deployed code
>> processes the prefixes in the sequential order of their actual presence
>> in an update message.  -- Enke

> Well, we don't, for example.  But we're not the 800lb gorilla.

> We also don't send updates that contain duplicate NLRI in multiple
> inappropriate fields.  But we want to deal sanely with those that do.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email