IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: processing order of reach/unreach in rfc2858bis

Enke Chen <enke@redback.com> Wed, 20 February 2002 20:06 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 PAA00250 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:06:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 270B2912AD; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:05:47 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id ECDD6912AE; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:05:46 -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 ED05A912AD for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:05:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C168C5DDAB; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:05:45 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CDFC5DD9C for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:05:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from popserv1.redback.com (popserv1.redback.com [155.53.12.56]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EB2262815; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.36.220]) by popserv1.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30BA415D3C1; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:05:41 -0800 (PST)
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu, enke@redback.com
Subject: Re: processing order of reach/unreach in rfc2858bis
In-Reply-To: Message from Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> of "Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:58:07 EST." <20020220145807.P22759@nexthop.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:05:40 -0800
From: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>
Message-Id: <20020220200541.30BA415D3C1@popserv1.redback.com>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:58:07 -0500
> From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
> To: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>
> Cc: idr@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: processing order of reach/unreach in rfc2858bis
> Message-ID: <20020220145807.P22759@nexthop.com>
> References: <azinin@nexsi.com> <20020220184159.DF41E979C1@popserv2.redback.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
> In-Reply-To: <20020220184159.DF41E979C1@popserv2.redback.com>; from enke@redback.com on Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:41:58AM -0800
> X-NextHop-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> 
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:41:58AM -0800, Enke Chen wrote:
> > For folks who care about (or need to deal with) code deployment and
> > compatibility, please note that the majority of the depoyed routers
> > process the prefixes in the sequential order. To do it differently,
> > we will need a strong reason why the sequential processing is not
> > good enough, and be willing to deal with compatibility and transition
> > issues.
> 
> MP_REACH_NLRI is enumerated before MP_UNREACH_NLRI in the path attributes.

It may not be the actual order in an update message. The deployed code
processes the prefixes in the sequential order of their actual presence
in an update message.  -- Enke

> This is the opposite for WD_NLRI and NLRI.

> 
> > -- Enke
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Haas 
> NextHop Technologies

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email