bgp4-17 Section 9
"Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 11 January 2002 15:55 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 KAA10993 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:55:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id B708C9128D; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:54:40 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 560D491288; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:54:40 -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 CF95E91289 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:54:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A49655DF4B; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:54:36 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from hose.mail.pipex.net (hose.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.58]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id CC65C5DF4F for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:54:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 8360 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2002 15:54:31 -0000
Received: from useraq84.uk.uudial.com (HELO tom3) (62.188.136.144) by smtp-4.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2002 15:54:31 -0000
Message-ID: <007d01c2b989$a6a6c2c0$c490bc3e@tom3>
Reply-To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
From: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
To: idr@merit.edu
Subject: bgp4-17 Section 9
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 15:53:01 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
9.1.2 Route selection now allows for the best route in Loc-RIB not to be placed in the Routing table; how does this impact on the principle (2 Introduction) that a BGP Speaker should only advertise routes it itself uses? Is it enough for the route to be in Loc-RIB and not in the Routing Table? I believe the paragraph on immediate next hop should cross-reference the one in 5.1.3; and the latter allows route lookup to resolve to a subnet and not an immediate next hop address, a possibility 9.1.2 appears not to cater for. Perhaps the information on immediate next hop in 5.1.3 and 9 should be combined in one place; 5.1.3 would be my preference. 9.1.2.1 Intermediate network address throws me each time as I start thinking of networks; I assume that this is the immediate next hop of Rte1; if so, would not that be clearer? Resolvability talks of routing table entries for IGP and directly connected networks; for consistency with 3.2, I would like to see static in there as well. 9.1.2.2e Again 5.1.3 impacts on this;should this be 'immediate next hop' as opposed to 'next hop' (or NEXT_HOP!) and what happens with a recursive lookup? Which of the metrics in the various Routing Table entries gets used? Perhaps 'The interior cost of a route is the metric in the routing table for the immediate next hop (see 5.1.3)' Tom Petch, Network Consultant nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com
- Re: bgp4-17 Section 9 Edward Crabbe
- Re: bgp4-17 Section 9 Alex Zinin
- Re: bgp4-17 Section 9 Jeffrey Haas
- Re: bgp4-17 Section 9 Tom Petch
- Re: bgp4-17 Section 9 Tom Petch
- Re: bgp4-17 Section 9 Yakov Rekhter
- Re: bgp4-17 Section 9 Yakov Rekhter
- Fw: bgp4-17 Section 9 Tom Petch
- Re: bgp4-17 Section 9 Alex Zinin
- bgp4-17 Section 9 Tom Petch