
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA19027 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:11:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5FCF15E709; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:42:29 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@merit.edu
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0BFAD5E1DB; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:20:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imchub1.cosinecom.com (imchub1.cosinecom.com [63.88.104.18]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25AD95E1E0 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:39:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by imchub1.cosinecom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <J4SYQNV1>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:40:04 -0700
Message-ID: <5E686636124A2042B4E5EE1F15191F270839F1@exchsrv3>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@cosinecom.com>
To: "'idr@merit.edu'" <idr@merit.edu>
Subject: AS_PATH length > 255
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:39:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Although not too practical, it is possible to have an 
AS_PATH whose length is > 255 (especially with AS padding).
The length of the AS_PATH attribute is limited to 255
because the length field is only one octet long.

What is the correct way to handle such a case?  I couldn't
find anything about this in the BGP-4 draft.  

Thanks, -Anoop



Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA13903 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:40:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 146B85DEC9; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:33:32 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@merit.edu
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EEC605DED0; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:33:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hotmail.com (f187.law14.hotmail.com [64.4.21.187]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F785DEC9 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:33:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:33:29 -0700
Received: from 65.198.24.253 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;	Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:33:29 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [65.198.24.253]
From: "proto man" <protocolwork@hotmail.com>
To: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Local Pref
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:33:29 -0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F1871VRIjn04x29xDbH0000f266@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2001 20:33:29.0804 (UTC) FILETIME=[D10DE0C0:01C0D1B4]
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Hi,
  Section 4.3) of update message description states
  Local Pref is a well-known mandatory attribute.

  Section 5) states it is a 'required' attribute for IBGP session.

  Section 5.1.5) state it is a well-known mandatory attribute.

  Question : which is it or does a notification needs to be sent
  when LOCAL PREF is missing in an update from an IBGP peer.

Appreciate any answer.
Thanks,
Priya Moniker.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com




Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA00637 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:51:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A8FC85DD9C; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:47:35 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@merit.edu
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 947CC5DE64; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:47:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hotmail.com (f110.law14.hotmail.com [64.4.21.110]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF5E5DD9C for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:47:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:47:33 -0700
Received: from 65.198.24.253 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;	Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:47:32 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [65.198.24.253]
From: "proto man" <protocolwork@hotmail.com>
To: idr@merit.edu
Subject: BGP route selection
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:47:32 -0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F110keTxtfkdpczeyif00003d41@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2001 01:47:33.0188 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF905840:01C0C484]
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Hi,
  In the route selection algorithm comparing igp cost to nexthop
  comes before determining if one of the candidate route is external
  But i see major vendors have reversed the steps, is this the BCP?

Thanks,
-priya moniker
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



