Re: IDR WG Last Call
Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com> Tue, 15 January 2002 19:50 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 OAA06601 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:50:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 838489125C; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:50:00 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 30CFD9125D; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:50:00 -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 1261B9125C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:49:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DA61E5DDCB; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:49:58 -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 928565DDC9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:49:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from SKH.nexthop.com ([64.211.218.122]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0FJnG395478; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:49:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from skh@nexthop.com)
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20020115144829.04a58df8@mail.nexthop.com>
X-Sender: skh@mail.nexthop.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
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
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
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 <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
- Re: as4bytes - 4byte speaker receiving new* attri… Enke Chen
- Re: as4bytes - 4byte speaker receiving new* attri… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: as4bytes - 4byte speaker receiving new* attri… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: as4bytes - 4byte speaker receiving new* attri… Enke Chen
- as4bytes - 4byte speaker receiving new* attribute… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Another suggestion for draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-12… Enke Chen
- Re: Another suggestion for draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-12… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Another suggestion for draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-12… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Another suggestion for draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-12… Enke Chen
- Re: Suggested changes to bgp4 draft for maximum p… Enke Chen
- Re: AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier Enke Chen
- Re: A Question about Tie breaking rules (draft-ie… Enke Chen
- Re: Maximum Prefix Limit Enke Chen
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Jeffrey Haas
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Susan Hares
- Re: IDR WG Last Call Susan Hares
- 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: processing order of reach/unreach in rfc2858b… Alex Zinin
- Re: processing order of reach/unreach in rfc2858b… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: processing order of reach/unreach in rfc2858b… Enke Chen
- Re: Graceful restart comment Enke Chen
- Re: Graceful restart comment Gargi Nalawade
- Re: Graceful restart comment Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Graceful restart comment Pedro Roque Marques
- Re: Graceful restart comment Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Graceful restart comment Pedro Roque Marques
- Re: Graceful restart comment Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Graceful restart comment Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Graceful restart comment Kaarthik Sivakumar
- Re: Graceful restart comment Manav Bhatia
- Re: admin dist/gp spec proposal Enke Chen
- Re: [Idr] Last Call on draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-… Enke Chen