Subject: Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-17.txt

From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:52:33 -0400

Part II.

Technical Comments:
===================

1. P.28, 2nd to last paragraph. The line that reads, "To be semantically
correct, the IP address in the NEXT_HOP must not be the IP address of the
receiving speaker, and the NEXT_HOP IP address must either be the sender's
IP address (used to establish the BGP session), or the interface associated
with the NEXT_HOP IP address must share a common subnet with the receiving
BGP speaker..."

This is not always true, what if the current ASBR BGP router is advertising
an external AS route (to a IBGP Peer) whose NEXT_HOP IP address is the IP
address of the EBGP peer in the other AS?

2. P. 29, Section 6.3. Add this rule near the attribute rules.
"Multiple prefixes that require the same attribute type with different
values must never appear in the same update message".

3. P. 29, Section 6.5, Please rewrite this sentence from:
    "If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE
     and/or NOTIFICATION messages within the period specified in the Hold
     Time field of the OPEN message ..."

 To This:
    "If a system does not receive successive KEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE
     and/or any other BGP message within the period specified in the Hold
     Time field of the OPEN message ..."
4. P. 31, section 6.8, Please rewrite this sentence from:
   "Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by treating them as (4-octet long)
    unsigned integers."
             
 To This:
   "Comparing BGP Identifiers is done by treating them as large numbers
based 
    on their IP Address type (e.g. IPv4, IPv6, etc.)."

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?

---

From: Mathew Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:12:23 -0400

> Abarbanel, Benjamin <[email-masked]> [Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 10:52:33AM -0400]:
>Part II.
>
>Technical Comments:
>===================
>

See the sentence immediately prior to the one you don't like... it reads:

   Semantic correctness applies only to the external BGP
   links, and only when the sender and the receiving speaker are one IP
   hop away from each other

<snip>

>    on their IP Address type (e.g. IPv4, IPv6, etc.)."

The BGP Identifier is 4 octets...

>unresolvable routes should be kept in Adj-RIBs-In?

In case they become resolvable...

mrr