Fw: bgp4-17 Section 9

["Tom Petch" <[e-mail]>]

----Original Message-----
From: Alex Zinin <[e-mail]>
To: Tom Petch <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 January 2002 17:17
Subject: Re: bgp4-17 Section 9


[edited]
>>
>> Resolvability talks of routing table entries for IGP and
>> directly connected networks; for consistency with 3.2, I
>> would like to see static in there as well.
>
>I actually thought about it when writing this text, but
>it fell out of my head. How about this:
>
>   BGP routes do not refer to interfaces, but can be
resolved through
>   the routes in the Routing Table that can be of both
types. IGP routes
>   and routes to directly connected networks are expected
to specify the
>   outbound interface. Static routes can specify the
outbound
>   interface, or the intermediate address, or both.


Yes I like the additional sentence.

One final tweak could be to amend

> the routes in the Routing Table that can be of both types
to
the routes in the Routing Table which can be of either type

>
>> 9.1.2.2e  Again 5.1.3 impacts on this;should this be
>> 'immediate next hop' as opposed to 'next hop' (or
NEXT_HOP!)
>> and what happens with a recursive lookup?  Which of the
>> metrics in the various Routing Table entries gets used?
>> Perhaps 'The interior cost of a route is the metric in
the
>> routing table for the immediate next hop (see 5.1.3)'
>
>In fact, "next hop" should read as NEXT_HOP. The metric
>is the IGP cost found in the route resolving the NEXT_HOP.
>
>Alex.


I think recursive lookup - great concept - does make it hard
to specify these things in English without getting clumsy.
Perhaps we need terminology to differentiate the first from
the subsequent from the last entry to be used from the
routing table.  I think the last is intended here or is it
intended to be ambiguous?


Tom Petch, Network Consultant
[e-mail]