Subject: issue 29

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:58:12 -0700

29) State Why Unresolveable Routes Should Be Kept in Adj-RIB-In
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Status: No Consensus
  Change: Potentially
  Summary:  Explicity state that there is a chance routes can become 
    resolveable, and should therefore be kept in Adj-RIB-In.  No text  
    has yet been suggested.
  
  Discussion:
  
   5. P.46, last sentence, "However, corresponding unresolvable routes SHOULD 
   be kept in the Adj-RIBs-In."  It would helpful if the author states why
   unresolvable routes should be kept in Adj-RIBs-In?
  
   A reponse to this stated "In case they become resolveable"
  
I suggest we add "in case they become resolvable" after the last sentence
on p. 46.

   The original commentor stated that:
   Then the point that the peer will not refresh the route if we drop
   them (unless we use Route Refresh) because they are unreachable should be
   made.

This should be clear from the following text in Section 3:

   The initial data flow is the portion of the BGP routing table that
   is allowed by the export policy, called the Adj-Ribs-Out (see 3.2).
   Incremental updates are sent as the routing tables change. BGP does
   not require periodic refresh of the routing table. 

Yakov.