Re: IDR WG Last Call

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

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.


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 <[e-mail]>
> > > To: Enke Chen <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: IDR WG Last Call
> > > Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> > >
> > > 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    one of the following fields: WITHDRAWN ROUTES field, Network 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 more than one of the following fields: WITHDRAWN ROUTES, Network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 WITHDRAWN ROUTE, MP_UNREACH_NLRI, MP_REACH_NLRI, Network Layer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
> >
> >
>
>_____________________________
>[e-mail] <>< Grace Alone