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 (EST)
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