Subject: RE: Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3

From: "Cambria, Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:53:53 -0400

(Pretending that I'm) reading the draft for the first time...

Your comment:

Somewhere in section 9.1.x, Do we want to mention the fact that the best 
Loc-RIB BGP route for a given destination is still advertised to outgoing 
peers via the Adj-RIB-out after it passes the outbound policy filtering,
even though it is not really used for forwarding?

and the text in 9.1.3 can be read as a contraction of section 2 (when only
considering the base document, no route reflectors, route servers etc.):

"... one must focus on the rule that a BGP speaker advertises to its peers
(other BGP speakers which it communicates with) in neighboring ASs only
those routes that it itself uses."

If, in the scope of an implementation of only what is specified in this
draft, one can advertise to a peer what is in Loc-RIB but not the Route
Table, the text in section 2 should be clarified.  Otherwise, the text in
9.1.3 (and your comment) should be clarified, as it doesn't mention anything
about the route table.

All this assumes that Loc-RIB <> Routing Table, which is how I read the
draft.

MikeC

-----Original Message-----
From: Abarbanel, Benjamin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:27 AM
To: 'Mathew Richardson'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3

Mathew:

> >
> >I'm looking for clarification to wording in section 9.1.3 
> Phase 3: Route
> >Dessemination of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt.
> >
> >My understanding is that a BGP route should not be 
> advertised to a peer if
> >that route is not also in the Routing Table (e.g. FIB).  I 
> was looking for
> >wording to support this, but am now starting to second guess myself.
> >

What about the case where the best BGP route for a given destination is
rejected/
preempted from the routing table by a higher preferenced IGP, Static, etc.,
route which is really used for forwarding?

Somewhere in section 9.1.x, Do we want to mention the fact that the best 
Loc-RIB BGP route for a given destination is still advertised to outgoing 
peers via the Adj-RIB-out after it passes the outbound policy filtering,
even though it is not really used for forwarding?

Ben

---

From: "'Mathew Richardson'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:18:13 -0400

> Cambria, Mike <[email-masked]> [Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:53:53AM -0400]:
>

I thought that that was in there somewhere :)  I guess I've just gotten
in to the bad habit of skipping the intro and going straight to the
"good stuff" :)

>9.1.3 (and your comment) should be clarified, as it doesn't mention anything

How about changing the paragraph after c) in 9.1.2 to:

  The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB,
  replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being
  held in the Loc-RIB.  This route SHALL then also be installed in
  the BGP speakers forwarding table.

<snip>

I personally much prefer this.  It helps keep the base spec focused
on describing the base protocol.

mrr