IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: issue 11

Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Tue, 01 October 2002 16:37 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25991 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:37:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3A95B91225; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:21 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 005B191284; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
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 A12C791225 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 7DEB75DE5B; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:19 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538E45DE54 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17wQ3J-000Hom-00; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:39:17 -0700
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:37:27 -0700
From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal
Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <113255294634.20021001093727@psg.com>
To: "Natale, Jonathan" <JNatale@celoxnetworks.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: issue 11
In-Reply-To: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAED@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com>
References: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B020AFAED@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Besides, it doesn't say anything about how the routes
are selected.

-- 
Alex

Tuesday, October 01, 2002, 5:56:07 AM, Natale, Jonathan wrote:
> I disagree, this does not reflect current implementations that I know of.
> Does anybody's implementation do this? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@axiowave.com] 
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM
> To: 'Alex Zinin'; Yakov Rekhter
> Cc: idr@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: issue 11

> The following paragraph somewhere in the document may help resolve the
> issue:

> "If more than a single BGP route to the same destination prefix are
> selected to be used locally by a speaker (e.g. for the load sharing
> purposes), such a BGP speaker SHOULD form an aggregate of all such routes
> for the purpose of advertising this prefix to other BGP peers. Route
> aggregation rules are specified in section 9.2.2.2."

> Dimitry

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status