Re: editorial fixes

Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Wed, 16 January 2002 13:57 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 IAA03354 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:57:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5A09991282; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:57:05 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 25AA5912B4; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:57:05 -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 E942E91282 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:57:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C43635DE19; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:57:03 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from presque.djinesys.com (presque.djinesys.com [198.108.88.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82495DE17 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:57:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from SKH.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.122]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0GDuP325106; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:56:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com)
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20020116085531.039c5a48@mail.nexthop.com>
X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:56:24 -0500
To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
Subject: Re: editorial fixes
Cc: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0201152227040.21231-100000@ruwhite-u10.cisco .com>
References: <5.0.0.25.0.20020115191918.029259a8@mail.nexthop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-NextHop-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Russ:

Alex and are discussing his text.   next day or two
is a good comment.

Sue

At 10:27 PM 1/15/2002 -0500, Russ White wrote:

>I think Alex is suggesting alternate text altogether--we should
>see it in the next day or two.
>
>Russ
>
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Susan Hares wrote:
>
> >
> > 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" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
> > >To:      "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net>
> > >cc:      <idr@merit.edu>
> > >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
> > >nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com
> > >
> > >- -----Original Message-----
> > >From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
> > >To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
> > >Cc: idr@merit.edu <idr@merit.edu>
> > >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
> >
> >
>
>_____________________________
>riw@cisco.com <>< Grace Alone