Re: [Idr] issue: bgp4-23: route resolvability and discard/null0 routes

It's a fair point but sounds more like
draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-experience-protocol-03.txt
than
draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-23.txt

Tom Petch

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>
Date: 29 February 2004 06:24
Subject: Re: [Idr] issue: bgp4-23: route resolvability and discard/null0
routes


>After some off-list iteration, a revamped version of the possible text
>could be:
>
>In certain common deployment scenarios, the next-hop addresses are
>supposed to be valid only if resolved via routes of a specific type
>(e.g., IGP, connected or local).  There are likely less specific
>routes from other sources (e.g., static or BGP) which may resolve the
>next-hops as well, but such resolvability typically leads to problems
>when the less specific route actually can't be used to reach the
>next-hop, and the BGP routes are not invalidated even though their
>next-hop is, for all intents and purposes, unroutable.  Therefore, it
>is advisable that the implementations allow the operator to specify
>which routes should yield a positive result if they covered the the
>next-hop.
>
>.. thoughts?  This doesn't have any MAY/SHOULD etc. terminology, at
>least yet -- maybe it should.
>
>--
>Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
>Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
>Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idr mailing list
>Idr@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr


_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr