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