Re: bgp4-17 5.1.3 immediate next hop

"Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Tue, 15 January 2002 18:34 UTC

Message-ID: <004c01c2bcc4$85620280$0301a8c0@tom3>
Reply-To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
From: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
To: Alex Zinin <azinin@nexsi.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: bgp4-17 5.1.3 immediate next hop
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:31:52 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Well yes, I did understand it (I think).

I still query the use of the term 'resolving route'.  (I
just don't see the term used in this, IP
forwarding, context and there is a disjunction between this
and the previous sentence, which uses the more familiar - to
me - terms such as recursive route lookup).

I find it much clearer when you say, as in your e-mail,
'the route resolving the NEXT_HOP'
or going a bit further
'the routing table entry which resolves the NEXT_HOP
attribute.
I see no harm and positive benefit is spelling it out.

Tom Petch, Network Consultant
nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com

Re: bgp4-17 5.1.3 immediate next hop Tom Petch
Re: bgp4-17 5.1.3 immediate next hop Alex Zinin
bgp4-17 5.1.3 immediate next hop Tom Petch