Re: IDR WG Last Call

Enke Chen <enke@redback.com> Tue, 15 January 2002 00:05 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 TAA01716 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:05:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4BAA491234; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:04:27 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 197D691235; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:04:27 -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 1157A91234 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:04:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DC19B5DE51; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:04:25 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A74265DE1D for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:04:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from popserv3.redback.com (popserv3.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E76CAB71; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:04:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.36.220]) by popserv3.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D247E6C1; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:04:24 -0800 (PST)
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu, enke@redback.com
Subject: Re: IDR WG Last Call
In-Reply-To: Message from Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> of "Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:12:57 EST." <20020114181256.I7761@nexthop.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:04:24 -0800
From: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>
Message-Id: <20020115000424.A0D247E6C1@popserv3.redback.com>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Jeff,
Thanks for the pointer - I totally missed that part of the spec..

It seems that the "SAFI 3" certainly makes the issue at hand much more
complicated. As Yakov and Sue pointed out, it is a good idea to discourage
having one prefix in multiple fields of an update message. How about the
following text:

   An UPDATE message should not include the same address prefix in more than
   one of the following fields: WITHDRAWN ROUTES field, Network Reachability
   Information fields, MP_REACH_NLRI field, and MP_UNREACH_NLRI field. The
   processing of an UPDATE message in this form is un-defined.

-- Enke

> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:12:57 -0500
> From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
> To: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>
> Cc: idr@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: IDR WG Last Call
> Message-ID: <20020114181256.I7761@nexthop.com>
> References: <skh@nexthop.com> <20020114221214.3242A15D3C1@popserv1.redback.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
> In-Reply-To: <20020114221214.3242A15D3C1@popserv1.redback.com>; from enke@redback.com on Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 02:12:12PM -0800
> X-NextHop-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> 
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 02:12:12PM -0800, Enke Chen wrote:
> > In order for me to make sense out of your example, I need to be educated
> > on how/why/when one would use "SAFI 3", especially in the context of
> > Multi-protocol BGP.
> 
> 3 - Network Layer Reachability Information used for both unicast
>     and multicast forwarding
> 
> In other words, where you would otherwise send a SAFI 1 and then a SAFI 2
> announcement for the same prefix and same path attributes, you could
> otherwise send a SAFI 3 advertisement.
> 
> >  -- Enke
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Haas 
> NextHop Technologies