Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:34:22 -0400
From: "'Mathew Richardson'" <mrr@nexthop.com>
To: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@marconi.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3
Message-ID: <20020906143422.GC23831@nexthop.com>
References: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2DD1@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2DD1@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

> Abarbanel, Benjamin <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> [Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:26:59AM -0400]:
>Mathew:
>
> 
>> >
>> >I'm looking for clarification to wording in section 9.1.3 
>> Phase 3: Route
>> >Dessemination of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt.
>> >
>> >My understanding is that a BGP route should not be 
>> advertised to a peer if
>> >that route is not also in the Routing Table (e.g. FIB).  I 
>> was looking for
>> >wording to support this, but am now starting to second guess myself.
>> >
>
>What about the case where the best BGP route for a given destination is
>rejected/
>preempted from the routing table by a higher preferenced IGP, Static, etc.,
>route which is really used for forwarding?

This route would have to be in the Loc-RIB, and would replace all other
routes in the Loc-RIB.  Whether this actually happens or not is a matter
of local-policy.

>Somewhere in section 9.1.x, Do we want to mention the fact that the best 
>Loc-RIB BGP route for a given destination is still advertised to outgoing 
>peers via the Adj-RIB-out after it passes the outbound policy filtering,
>even though it is not really used for forwarding?

<snip>

You're talking about the case where a BGP route to some destination D
has been installed in the Loc-RIB, but no route to destination D has been
added to the forwarding table?  I'm not sure we want to elaborate on that
case, except, perhaps, to disallow it.

mrr