Re: IDR WG Last Call
Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Tue, 15 January 2002 21:33 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 QAA09700 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:33:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id F015591273; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:32:40 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C1F1C91278; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:32:39 -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 995A191273 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:32:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 51FC45DDA5; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:32:38 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from presque.djinesys.com (presque.djinesys.com [198.108.88.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05465DDAC for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:32:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from SKH.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.122]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0FLWP398942; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:32:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com)
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20020115163041.02879998@mail.nexthop.com>
X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:32:23 -0500
To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
Subject: Re: IDR WG Last Call
Cc: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>, Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, idr@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0201151501420.20905-100000@ruwhite-u10.cisco .com>
References: <20020115200052.03951979C1@popserv2.redback.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-NextHop-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
I know of at least 2 implementations that do 1,2,3 and I know of at least 2 implementations that do not (1,2 only). Sigh.. Yakov is drafting a change to text to try to address all of these concerns. I'll await his note. sue At 03:02 PM 1/15/2002 -0500, Russ White wrote: >Correct--SAFI 3.... There aren't any implementations that I've >seen, and it does complicate matters a bit more than needed. > >Russ > >On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Enke Chen wrote: > > > Sue, > > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:49:14 -0500 > > > To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> > > > From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> > > > Subject: Re: IDR WG Last Call > > > Cc: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>, > > > idr@merit.edu > > > In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0201151303290.20852-100000@ruwhite-u10.cisco > > > .com> > > > References: <20020115174716.CC5A815D3C1@popserv1.redback.com> > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > > X-NextHop-MailScanner: Found to be clean > > > > > > Russ: > > > > > > We had that vote 1 month ago. The overwhelming > > > majority was to keep it in. We are not re-opening > > > that issue having closed it on the mail list already. > > > > The issue then was the "BGP State Machine". Russ was talking abut "SAFI 3" > > in his message if I am not mistaken. > > > > -- Enke > > > > > > > > > > > Sue > > > > > > At 01:03 PM 1/15/2002 -0500, Russ White wrote: > > > > > > >I think it's probably a good idea to get rid of this out of the > > > >spec--it would make things cleaner. > > > > > > > >Russ > > > > > > > >On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Enke Chen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jeff, > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:21:28 -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: <20020114232128.B14701@nexthop.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:04:24PM -0800, Enke Chen wrote: > > > > > > > It seems that the "SAFI 3" certainly makes the issue at hand > much more > > > > > > > complicated. > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, SAFI 3 was probably not a very good idea. Dealing with it can > > > > > > be a real pain in the implementation. :-) > > > > > > > > > > So can we clean out "SAFI 3" from MP-BGP spec.? It does not seem > to add > > > > > much value, but has caused a lot of confusion and complexity. I > am not > > > > > aware of any depolyment either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that "undefined" is overkill. I would suggest the > following > > > > instead: > > > > > > > > > > > > An UPDATE message should not include the same address prefix in > > > > > > more than one of the following fields: WITHDRAWN ROUTES, Network > > > > > > Layer Reachability Information, MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI. > > > > > > An implementation that receives a packet in this form should > process > > > > > > the Update as if it had processed it in the following order: > > > > > > WITHDRAWN ROUTE, MP_UNREACH_NLRI, MP_REACH_NLRI, Network Layer > > > > > > Reachability Information. > > > > > > > > > > > > The wording could probably use some tightening. > > > > > > > > > > > > The intended result is that reachability rules over unreachability. > > > > > > > > > > If we want to define the behavior, I would like to suggest > sticking to > > > > > the order in the message. That probably would reflect the sender's > > > > > intention more closely, and make the processing simpler. > > > > > > > > > > -- Enke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_____________________________ > > > >riw@cisco.com <>< Grace Alone > > > > > > > > > >_____________________________ >riw@cisco.com <>< Grace Alone
- Re: BGP MIB work Susan Hares
- Re: BGP MIB work Enke Chen
- BGP MIB work Susan Hares
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Alex Zinin
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Jeffrey Haas
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Jeffrey Haas
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 andrewl
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Susan Hares
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Susan Hares
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Susan Hares
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Susan Hares
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Susan Hares
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Alex Zinin
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Alex Zinin
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 andrewl
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Edward Crabbe
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Antal Sasvari
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Eric Gray
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 David Ball
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Enke Chen
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Ben Black
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Yakov Rekhter
- Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15 Randy Bush
- FSM changes for the Draft-15 Susan Hares
- Re: AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier Enke Chen
- Re: AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier Enke Chen
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Susan Hares
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Enke Chen
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Susan Hares
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Jeffrey Haas
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Russ White
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Enke Chen
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Jeffrey Haas
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Enke Chen
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Enke Chen
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Enke Chen