Re: bgp4-17 Section 9

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Mon, 14 January 2002 20:17 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 PAA25264 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:17:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 6CE6D91225; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:16:54 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3CFE991226; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:16:54 -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 EDDFD91225 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:16:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CB8B45DDF6; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:16:52 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE1E5DDF2 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:16:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0EKGo644430; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:16:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net)
Message-Id: <200201142016.g0EKGo644430@merlot.juniper.net>
To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: bgp4-17 Section 9
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 11 Jan 2003 15:53:01 GMT." <007d01c2b989$a6a6c2c0$c490bc3e@tom3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1721.1011039410.1@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:16:50 -0800
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

> 
> 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.