Subject: [Idr] Feedback on draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt

From: Michael Dell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:20:00 +0100

Enke

I had a couple of comments on your draft 'Advertisement of the Group Best
Paths in BGP'.

1.  If I understand your proposals correctly, then your draft relies on the
BGP decision process implementing the feature commonly known as
Deterministic MED, and also relies on the feature commonly known as 'Always
Compare MED' being disabled.  Have I understood this correctly?  If so, then
I think it would be helpful to state this explicitly.  I know these are
features which are not formally defined in a draft (so far as I am aware),
but they are features which are commonly available, and so allowance should
be made for them.

2.  From an implementation point of view, I think it would be helpful to
clarify what a BGP speaker should do if it wants to replace the previous set
of best paths with a single new one.  I believe that your current proposal
would require that speaker to send 2 update messages, with the first
containing a withdrawal for the prefix with the neighbor-AS set to 0 and the
2nd containing the single replacement route.  Since these two pieces of
information are carried in different sections of the BGP update message, it
might be simpler to allow them to be carried in the same message, although I
believe this requires explicit description to allow it.

Regards

Mike Dell
Networking Protocols Group
Data Connection Ltd
Tel: +44 20 8366 1177
Fax: +44 20 8367 1039
E-mail: mailto:[email-masked]
Web: http://www.dataconnection.com

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr