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
- Re: editorial fixes Susan Hares
- Re: editorial fixes Russ White
- Re: editorial fixes Susan Hares
- editorial fixes Yakov Rekhter