Re: editorial fixes
Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> Wed, 16 January 2002 03:28 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 WAA18532 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:28:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3A7DC91271; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:27:41 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 063AE91272; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:27:40 -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 622B191271 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:27:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 33F775DDA7; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:27:39 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED55B5DDA0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:27:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ruwhite-u10.cisco.com (ruwhite-u10.cisco.com [64.102.48.251]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA26538; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:27:37 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:27:37 -0500
From: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com>
Reply-To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
To: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: editorial fixes
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20020115191918.029259a8@mail.nexthop.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0201152227040.21231-100000@ruwhite-u10.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
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