From mailman-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 1 07:30:20 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA15969 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bfzlm-00028G-Pb for idr-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:30:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bfzkg-0001h6-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:29:15 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfzjW-0000vB-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:28:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfxjV-0004oo-TJ for idr-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 05:19:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: idr-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 05:04:57 -0400 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 List-Id: Mailman site list X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: mailman-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. ********************************************************************** NOTE WELL: Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: o the IETF plenary session, o any IETF working group or portion thereof, o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, o any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3667 and RFC 3668. Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC 3667 for details. ******************************************************************************* If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! Passwords for idr-archive@ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- idr@ietf.org omkeeh https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr/idr-archive%40ietf.org From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 1 22:53:49 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17796 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:53:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgEBR-0003qP-Ka for idr-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:53:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BgEAQ-0003Qj-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:52:47 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BgE9P-0002hO-00; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:51:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgE5v-0005LW-9g; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:48:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgDz4-00023S-Ae for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:41:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17009 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgDz2-0006qe-Hx for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:41:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BgDy2-0006U3-00 for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:39:58 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BgDxY-000683-00; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:39:28 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i622cvBm077740; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i622cvd88034; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407020238.i622cvd88034@merlot.juniper.net> To: zinin@psg.com, fenner@research.att.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <70099.1088735937.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:38:57 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter Cc: skh@nexthop.com, idr@ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, yakov@juniper.net Subject: [Idr] BGP Graceful Restart to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Alex and Bill, The IDR WG would like to ask the IESG to to advance draft-ietf-idr-restart-10.txt to a Proposed Standard. The implementation report is in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-survey-01.txt. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 2 10:32:24 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08877 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgP5W-000676-A4 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:32:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BgP4X-0005jc-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:31:26 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BgP3T-00055y-00; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:30:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgOid-0001RP-G3; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:08:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgOfP-0007iU-LZ for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:05:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06731 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgOfO-0005II-Ug for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:05:27 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BgOeI-0004vj-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:04:18 -0400 Received: from io.iol.unh.edu ([132.177.123.82]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BgOdP-0004KM-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:03:23 -0400 Received: from io.iol.unh.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by io.iol.unh.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i62E2pl1014308 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:02:51 -0400 Received: (from apache@localhost) by io.iol.unh.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id i62E2oij014307 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:02:50 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: io.iol.unh.edu: apache set sender to ebarrett@iol.unh.edu using -f Received: from alias.iol.unh.edu (alias.iol.unh.edu [132.177.118.53]) by webmail.iol.unh.edu (IMP) with HTTP for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:02:50 -0400 Message-ID: <1088776970.af842f5e425d3@webmail.iol.unh.edu> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:02:50 -0400 From: "Eric P. Barrett" To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs X-Originating-IP: 132.177.118.53 X-UNH-IOL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact systems@iol.unh.edu for more information X-UNH-IOL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ebarrett@iol.unh.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Idr] Aggregation Question X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, According to draft 24, "Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together." Later, it says "If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route SHALL have this attribute as well." My question is, wouldn't all the routes have to have the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in order for aggregation to take place based on the initial quote? The way the second quote's worded, it sounds like that wouldn't necessarily have to be the case. Thanks. Eric _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 2 12:29:04 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18055 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgQuR-0000MK-3H for idr-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:29:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BgQtF-0007lA-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:27:53 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BgQsH-0007L6-00; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:26:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgQUz-0003nC-TX; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:02:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgQIp-0004jR-D5 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:50:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14848 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgQIo-0001kz-IE for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:50:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BgQHI-0001D4-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:48:42 -0400 Received: from smtp.dataconnection.com ([192.91.191.4] helo=smtp.datcon.co.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BgQFV-0000IK-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:46:51 -0400 Received: by goodman.datcon.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:46:11 +0100 Message-ID: <53F74F5A7B94D511841C00B0D0AB16F802B13A81@baker.datcon.co.uk> From: Michael Dell To: "'Eric P. Barrett'" , idr@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Idr] Aggregation Question Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:46:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Eric The first quote, from section 9.2.2.2, is saying that you can only aggregate together attributes of the same type. This is pretty obvious, and just means you can't try to aggregate next-hop information (type code 3) with local_pref information (type code 5). The second quote requires that the atomic aggregate attribute is not lost during the aggregation. Technically, if 1 route has the atomic aggregate attribute, and another does not, then you are not aggregating two attributes of different type codes, you are merely aggregating an attribute with nothing, and ending up with the original attribute. Regards Mike Dell Networking Protocols Group Data Connection Ltd Tel: +44 20 8366 1177 Fax: +44 20 8367 8501 E-mail: mike.dell@dataconnection.com Web: http://www.dataconnection.com -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Eric P. Barrett Sent: 02 July 2004 15:03 To: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] Aggregation Question Hi, According to draft 24, "Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together." Later, it says "If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route SHALL have this attribute as well." My question is, wouldn't all the routes have to have the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in order for aggregation to take place based on the initial quote? The way the second quote's worded, it sounds like that wouldn't necessarily have to be the case. Thanks. Eric _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 5 12:21:24 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05275 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:21:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhWDd-0002TZ-T2 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:21:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BhWCh-0002AV-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:20:28 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BhWBu-0001bE-00; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:19:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhVpy-0008IO-PO; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:56:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhVil-0007jz-1p for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:49:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04126 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 11:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhVif-0000fM-3g for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:49:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BhVhj-0000O7-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:48:28 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BhVgo-0007ct-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:47:30 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i65Fl0Bm091043; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:47:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i65Fl0d89963; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:47:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407051547.i65Fl0d89963@merlot.juniper.net> To: Enke Chen Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-00.txt In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:06:16 PDT." <200406291806.i5TI6Gh08552@fall.redback.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <30684.1089042420.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 08:47:00 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter Cc: idr@ietf.org, naiming@redback.com X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Enke, > Hi, folks: > > Here is another attempt to tackle the issue of persistent IBGP > route oscillation. Please let us know if you have any comments > on the draft. Just to add to the above, draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-00.txt will be discussed at the upcoming IDR WG meeting. Yakov. > > Thanks. -- Enke > > ------- Forwarded Message > > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:27:53 -0400 > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-00.txt > Sender: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org > > --NextPart > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directorie s. > > > Title : Advertisement of the Group Best Paths in BGP > Author(s) : E. Chen > Filename : draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2004-6-28 > > In this document we first identify and qualify the Group Best Paths > for an address prefix as in general the necessary and sufficient > subset of paths that need to be advertised by a BGP route reflector > or a BGP confederation ASBR in order to eliminate the MED-type route > oscillations and to achieve consistent routing in a network. We then > propose a mechanism for BGP that would allow a route reflector or a > confederation ASBR to advertise the Group Best Paths. The proposed > mechanism is designed such that the vast majority of the BGP speakers > in a network need only minor software changes in order to deploy the > mechanism. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-00.txt > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 6 15:43:45 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17130 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bhvr0-0004QM-1d for idr-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:43:46 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bhvow-0003U3-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:41:39 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bhvmn-0002nm-01; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:39:25 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BhvZX-0002sR-HH; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:25:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bhv0G-0005cz-Tl; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:49:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfxMY-0000Aq-8J for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:56:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA06159 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 04:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfxMV-0003SP-UB for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:56:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfxLW-00033z-00 for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:55:07 -0400 Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfxL6-0002gJ-00 for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:54:40 -0400 Received: from ftrdmel3.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.155]) by parsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:54:40 +0200 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:54:39 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt Thread-Index: AcRfSQtWJvRknp7FQL+jsdkJWUVl5A== From: "DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2004 08:54:40.0883 (UTC) FILETIME=[0BD2C430:01C45F49] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:49:15 -0400 Subject: [Idr] draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, We would appreciate your feedback. Thanks=20 Nicolas, Bruno, Benoit A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions Author(s) : N. Dubois, et al. Filename : draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2004-6-30 =09 To ease the maintenance of BGP-4 sessions and limit the amount of=20 traffic that is lost during planned maintenance on routers, a=20 specific mechanism is proposed in order to gracefully shutdown a=20 router or a session.=20 It's proposed that a router first withdraw its route to its peer=20 to initiate their convergence. After a timer the router can proceed=20 with the closing of the BGP sessions and consequently remove its=20 peers'routes from it's RIB (Routing Information Base). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance -00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to=20 i-d-announce-request at ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. =20 You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce=20 to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html=20 or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv at ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". =09 NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. =09 =09 Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. =20 _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 6 21:18:55 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10020 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 21:18:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi15L-0004uQ-Bf for idr-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:18:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bi14O-0004ac-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:17:57 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bi13h-00041D-00; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:17:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi016-0006YH-3n; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 20:10:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhwgP-0006KR-Kx for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:36:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20799 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:36:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhwgJ-00079H-C7 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:36:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BhwfO-0006q1-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:35:50 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bhwez-0006UD-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:35:25 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i66KYm996269 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:34:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i66KYhd80359 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:34:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407062034.i66KYhd80359@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <54459.1089146083.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:34:43 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter Subject: [Idr] cutoff dates for the Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Folks, Those who plan to make presentations at the upcoming IDR WG meeting, please note that the cut-off dates for the upcoming 60th IETF meeting are: Mon Jul 12, 0900 EDT: cutoff for initial (-00) I-D submissions Mon Jul 19, 0900 EDT: final cutoff for I-D submission Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 6 22:10:02 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12416 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi1sp-0006Tc-9F for idr-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 22:10:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bi1rg-00065Z-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 22:08:53 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bi1qc-0005Oj-00; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 22:07:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi0Oa-0003TZ-LR; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 20:34:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bhxu5-0000DZ-3Y for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:55:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26493 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bhxty-0004VZ-MZ for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:54:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bhxst-0004BP-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:53:52 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BhxsI-0003rO-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:53:14 -0400 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2004 14:58:39 +0000 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i66LqVgI013384; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cisco.com (sj-rraszuk-vpn1.cisco.com [10.25.32.218]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id AVC89120; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <40EB1F13.6090904@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:52:19 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Nicolas, Would it be possible to either add a section to your draft or at least discuss on the list why existing BGP attributes if properly used can't achieve the same goal of graceful shutdown of the BGP peer ? Since your proposal already calls for full table churn I am not sure if using any existing tools would not help. Depending on the e/iBGP cases a router can effectively discourage peers from using his paths simply by injecting right values of MED, local preference or cost community with pre-best path POI. Also I could have missed it but where is the boundary of your graceful shutdown ? Is this always only peer to peer (1:N) ? Rgs, R. > DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS wrote: > > Hi, > > We would appreciate your feedback. > > Thanks > > Nicolas, Bruno, Benoit > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > Title : Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions > Author(s) : N. Dubois, et al. > Filename : draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2004-6-30 > > To ease the maintenance of BGP-4 sessions and limit the amount of > traffic that is lost during planned maintenance on routers, a > specific mechanism is proposed in order to gracefully shutdown a > router or a session. > It's proposed that a router first withdraw its route to its peer > to initiate their convergence. After a timer the router can proceed > with the closing of the BGP sessions and consequently remove its > peers'routes from it's RIB (Routing Information Base). > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance > -00.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request at ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body > of the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv at ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE > /internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail > readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -00.txt> > -00.txt> > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 7 04:37:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03901 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 04:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi7vf-0006kI-Dm for idr-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 04:37:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bi7ui-0006Og-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 04:36:25 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bi7u7-00062l-00; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 04:35:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi7UO-0003s2-8D; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 04:09:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi78V-0007TF-EW for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:46:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29077 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 03:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi78O-0004DR-7e for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:46:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bi76s-0003Oi-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:44:55 -0400 Received: from [203.199.83.248] (helo=rediffmail.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bi73w-0002e5-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:41:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 18974 invoked by uid 510); 7 Jul 2004 07:41:50 -0000 Date: 7 Jul 2004 07:41:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20040707074150.18973.qmail@webmail36.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (203.197.138.199) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 07 jul 2004 07:41:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "ephim era" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] Next Hop changes X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ephim era List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0875348035==" Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12,HTML_MESSAGE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multipart mime message --===============0875348035== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Next_1089186110---0-203.199.83.248-18970" This is a multipart mime message --Next_1089186110---0-203.199.83.248-18970 Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0AHi All,
=0A
=0AIs there a scenario (protocol, deployment, confi= guration) wherein a change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in I= GP routes (or vice-versa) ?
=0A
=0AThanks in advance,
=0AEphim
= =0A
=0A=0A

=0A

=0A=0A --Next_1089186110---0-203.199.83.248-18970 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All,=0A=0AIs there a scenario (protocol, deployment, configuration) wher= ein a change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP routes (or = vice-versa) ?=0A=0AThanks in advance,=0AEphim=0A=0A --Next_1089186110---0-203.199.83.248-18970-- --===============0875348035== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --===============0875348035==-- From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 8 16:20:19 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25573 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 16:20:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BifNU-0006BU-EA for idr-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:20:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BifLB-0005bP-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:17:58 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BifHU-0004Ws-00; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:14:08 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Bif2M-0003so-9s; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:58:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bib5h-0005Ek-G9; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:45:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BiGBv-0007Hu-5A for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:26:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02357 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:26:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BiGBo-00025c-Vv for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:26:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BiGAz-0001mp-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:25:46 -0400 Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.16]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BiGAR-0001Tm-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:25:11 -0400 Received: from ftrdmel3.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.155]) by parsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:24:20 +0200 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Subject: RE : [Idr] draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:24:19 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: RE : [Idr] draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt Thread-Index: AcRjyyMXw08LeUrkS4q7mfowVWL8sgAMOPxQABKeI+A= From: "DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2004 17:24:20.0668 (UTC) FILETIME=[3D4627C0:01C46447] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:45:39 -0400 Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Robert, Thanks for your review and comments. Comments in line, Regards, Nicolas, Bruno, Benoit > -----Original Message----- > From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Robert Raszuk > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:52 PM > To: DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS > Cc: idr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt >=20 >=20 > Hi Nicolas, >=20 > Would it be possible to either add a section to your draft or > at least=20 > discuss on the list why existing BGP attributes if properly=20 > used can't=20 > achieve the same goal of graceful shutdown of the BGP peer ? > Since your proposal already calls for full table churn I am=20 > not sure if=20 > using any existing tools would not help. Depending on the=20 > e/iBGP cases a=20 > router can effectively discourage peers from using his paths=20 > simply by=20 > injecting right values of MED, local preference or cost=20 > community with=20 > pre-best path POI. ND: Using existing attributes may be possible. But it's hard to know for a router, which BGP selection rule is beeing used by its peers and must be hit. As you said, it could be MED, local preference, dedicated community, IGP cost... ND: BGP withdraw have the following advantages: - the size of the message (shorter than new BGP updates) - independent of the BGP selection rules and policies used in peers routers. - same behavior for iBGP and eBGP sessions=20 - No or very little modification of the existing BGP mechanisms ND: As written in the draft, these BGP withdraw could already be generated by a local policies filtering out all advertised routes. But using a local BGP policy would require changing the configuration each time and could generate errors. ND: We'll add a section in the draft to discuss your remarks. =20 =20 > Also I could have missed it but where is the boundary of your=20 > graceful=20 > shutdown ? Is this always only peer to peer (1:N) ? ND: I'm not sure I understand correctly your question. ND: This is a per BGP session (or per AFI/SAFI) mechanism. From the peers point of view, there is no change to the BGP behavior. An eBGP peer or a BGP RR will probably reflect the changes to their BGP sessions. =20 > Rgs, > R. >=20 >=20 > > DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS wrote: > > > > Hi, > >=20 > > We would appreciate your feedback. > >=20 > > Thanks > >=20 > > Nicolas, Bruno, Benoit > >=20 > >=20 > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts=20 > > directories. > >=20 > >=20 > > Title : Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions > > Author(s) : N. Dubois, et al. > > Filename : draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt > > Pages : 8 > > Date : 2004-6-30 > > =09 > > To ease the maintenance of BGP-4 sessions and limit the amount of=20 > > traffic that is lost during planned maintenance on routers, a=20 > > specific mechanism is proposed in order to gracefully shutdown a=20 > > router or a session.=20 > > It's proposed that a router first withdraw its route to its peer=20 > > to initiate their convergence. After a timer the router=20 > can proceed=20 > > with the closing of the BGP sessions and consequently remove its=20 > > peers'routes from it's RIB (Routing Information Base). > >=20 > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:=20 > >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenan > > ce > > -00.txt > >=20 > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > > i-d-announce-request at ietf.org with the word unsubscribe=20 > in the body > > of the message. =20 > > You can also visit=20 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce=20 > > to change your subscription settings. > >=20 > >=20 > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the=20 > > username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After=20 > > logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then > > "get draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". > >=20 > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in=20 > > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or=20 > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > >=20 > >=20 > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >=20 > > Send a message to: > > mailserv at ietf.org. > > In the body type: > > "FILE=20 > /internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". > > =09 > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant=20 > mail readers > > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > > how to manipulate these messages. > > =09 > > =09 > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader=20 > > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the=20 > > Internet-Draft.=20 > >=20 > > ce > > -00.txt> > >=20 > -00.txt>=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >=20 _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 9 17:05:23 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00334 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 17:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bj2Yf-0003rv-BT for idr-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:05:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bj2Wg-00039h-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:03:22 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bj2Uo-0002Y2-01; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:01:26 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Bj2Io-0003A1-Jn; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:49:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bj1f4-0000yx-PU; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:07:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bizkn-0006E7-1G for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:05:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16417 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:05:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bizkg-0003dc-Vp for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:05:39 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bizjk-0003Gb-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:04:40 -0400 Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bizii-0002rI-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:03:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8505C517593; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02072-08; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fall.redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.44.81]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D15C51759D; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redback.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fall.redback.com (8.11.0/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) with ESMTP id i69I3Y803909; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200407091803.i69I3Y803909@fall.redback.com> To: yakov@juniper.net, skh@nexthop.com Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:03:34 -0700 From: Enke Chen X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: enke@redback.com, idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi, Yakov and Sue: Here is an updated version (-01.txt) that we would like to present at the upcoming IDR meeting. Thanks. -- Enke ------- Forwarded Message To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:27:48 -0400 Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt Sender: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Advertisement of the Group Best Paths in BGP Author(s) : E. Chen, N. Chen Filename : draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2004-7-8 In this document we first identify and qualify the Group Best Paths for an address prefix as in general the necessary and sufficient subset of paths that need to be advertised by a BGP route reflector or a BGP confederation ASBR in order to eliminate the MED-type route oscillations and to achieve consistent routing in a network. We then propose a mechanism for BGP that would allow a route reflector or a confederation ASBR to advertise the Group Best Paths. The proposed mechanism is designed such that the vast majority of the BGP speakers in a network need only minor software changes in order to deploy the mechanism. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt ------- End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 9 17:05:27 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00362 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 17:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bj2Yi-0003sO-Pu for idr-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:05:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bj2Wi-0003AK-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:03:25 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bj2Up-0002Y2-00; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:01:27 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Bj2Io-0003A2-AD; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:49:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bj1dy-0000QZ-JS; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:06:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BizWc-0003x8-4X for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:51:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15017 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BizWW-0005d1-15 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:51:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BizVf-0005H3-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:50:07 -0400 Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.160.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BizUT-0004VY-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:48:53 -0400 Received: from tom3 (1Cust231.tnt30.lnd3.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.122.231]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E6271C002AA for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:48:21 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <017401c465dc$774d9480$0301a8c0@tom3> From: "Tom Petch" To: Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call on BGP Graceful Restart Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:43:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Tom Petch List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A bit late I am afraid but ... I do think some aspects of this lack clarity and could do with more precise and consistent wording in order to increase the likelihood of compatible implementations.. 1) The End-of-RIB marker is a good thing, the I-D keeps saying so but ...If there has been no exchange of Graceful Restart Capability, can it still be sent? SHOULD NOT it? or what? And if there has been an exchange, again SHOULD it, MUST it? Section 5 says it is a good thing with no qualification; section 7 talks of the 'intention' of sending the marker after a GRC exchange (not our normal SHOULD/MUST language); section 6 says the procedures for the Receiving Speaker are defined in section 6.2 (actually 7.2) and here there is a SHALL but this only covers the restarting case; what about the initial startup - SHALL, SHOULD? 2) FSM I do not understand the pairing of TcpConnection_Valid (Event 14) with Tcp_CR_Acked (Event 16); normally it is TcpConnectionConfirmed (Event 17) that is paired with Event 14. Event 14 is the first sign of a remote speaker trying to talk to us; Event 17 is a later step in that process. Event 16 is the end result of us initiating a connection to the remote speaker. So we negotiate Graceful Restart capability for at least one AFI/SAFI, lose the TCP connection and do not notice, miss Event 14 because our engine does not generate it, get Event 17 and this is the first indication that we are about to become a Receiving Speaker; in response, we terminate the session killing all Graceful Restart. What have I got wrong? 3) forwarding state is used in several places and is never clearly defined; I think it should be. In 7.1 it talks of 'the forwarding state for the BGP routes in the Loc-RIB, and SHALL mark them as stale' suggesting that forwarding state is a set of flags, of which one is stale, in Loc-RIB; elsewhere it seems to be the Loc-RIB (but not the forwarding table?). If all we are doing is unicast BGP4, with no extensions, it probably does not matter but as BGP more complex, I believe it will. 4) In 7.1 we have ' When the Restarting Speaker restarts, possible it SHOULD retain, if possible, ' My first thought was that this is one too many 'possible's; on reflection, it is two too many; I do not believe we should be qualifying SHOULD at all - it is defined in RFC2119 and it is not for us to vary that. Tom Petch -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter To: idr@ietf.org Date: 17 June 2004 20:04 Subject: [Idr] WG Last Call on BGP Graceful Restart >Folks, > >This is to start the WG Last Call on advancing draft-ietf-idr-restart-10.txt >to a Proposed Standard. Since the the previous version of this document >already went through the WG Last Call, the main focus of this Last >Call is the new text on Finite State Machine. > >The Last Call ends July 1, 2004. > >Yakov. > >_______________________________________________ >Idr mailing list >Idr@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 10 06:03:12 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA02247 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:03:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjEhL-0006Lc-W1 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:03:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjEgN-00062s-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:02:12 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjEfK-0005Rq-00; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:01:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjEdE-00027z-Bv; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:58:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjEaf-0001oh-VZ for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:56:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01965 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjEad-000441-JS for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:56:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjEZf-0003jr-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:55:15 -0400 Received: from [203.199.83.246] (helo=rediffmail.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjEYo-0003Pd-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:54:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 15677 invoked by uid 510); 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000 Date: 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20040710095420.15676.qmail@webmail35.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (203.197.138.199) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 10 jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "ephim era" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ephim era List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0253206178==" Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, HTML_MESSAGE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multipart mime message --===============0253206178== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Next_1089453260---0-203.199.83.246-15673" This is a multipart mime message --Next_1089453260---0-203.199.83.246-15673 Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0AOn Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim  era wrote :
= =0A>Hi All,
=0A>
=0A>Is there a scenario (protocol, deployme= nt, configuration) wherein a change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of cha= nges in IGP routes (or vice-versa) ?
=0A>
=0A
=0A case excludin= g redistribution of routes... ?
=0A
=0A>Thanks in advance,
=0A&= gt;Ephim
=0A>
=0A>_____________________________________________= __
=0A>Idr mailing list
=0A>Idr@ietf.org
=0A>https://www1= .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
=0A=0A

=0A

=0A=0A --Next_1089453260---0-203.199.83.246-15673 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A=0A=0AOn Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim era wrote :=0A>Hi All,=0A>=0A>Is there = a scenario (protocol, deployment, configuration) wherein a change in BGP ne= xthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP routes (or vice-versa) ?=0A>=0A= =0A case excluding redistribution of routes... ?=0A=0A>Thanks in advance,= =0A>Ephim=0A>=0A>_______________________________________________=0A>Idr mai= ling list=0A>Idr@ietf.org=0A>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr=0A --Next_1089453260---0-203.199.83.246-15673-- --===============0253206178== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --===============0253206178==-- From idr-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 10 06:43:09 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05664 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:43:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjFK1-0003ZN-5B for idr-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:43:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjFHe-0002n1-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:40:42 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjFFW-0001n4-00; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:38:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjF3r-0006Sh-R2; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:26:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjF2m-0006Hj-6T for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:25:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA02932 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjF2j-0005Tl-Rx for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:25:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjF2K-0005Am-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:24:53 -0400 Received: from bay17-f22.bay17.hotmail.com ([64.4.43.72] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjF17-0004gq-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:23:38 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:23:09 -0700 Received: from 61.16.170.194 by by17fd.bay17.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:23:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [61.16.170.194] X-Originating-Email: [johnsmith0302@hotmail.com] X-Sender: johnsmith0302@hotmail.com From: "john smith" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:23:08 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2004 10:23:09.0161 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5857590:01C46667] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=no version=2.60 I am amazed no one has answered to this post. I have never seen the changes in BGP causing changes in IGP, as we rarely ever have cases where people do BGP-->IGP. It would bring down your network though :) I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato come into play only in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. Though, if I look up the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like Data Networks by Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not seem to be what is referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers and discussions that I see. The case and examples in the books never talk about multiple protocols to put forth the point of Hot Potato routing. Perhaps someone could help clarify the definations in the 1st place, -brgds JS >From: "ephim era" >Reply-To: ephim era >To: idr@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes >Date: 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000 > > > > >On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim era wrote : > >Hi All, > > > >Is there a scenario (protocol, deployment, configuration) wherein a >change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP routes (or >vice-versa) ? > > > > case excluding redistribution of routes... ? > > >Thanks in advance, > >Ephim > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Idr mailing list > >Idr@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > >_______________________________________________ >Idr mailing list >Idr@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 10 15:43:46 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29069 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjNlD-0005XQ-1J for idr-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:43:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjNkB-0005By-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:42:43 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjNjT-0004ZP-00; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:41:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjNf0-00016P-Q1; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:37:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjNZY-0000EI-EM for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:31:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28740 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjNZX-0001jS-4I for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:31:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjNYZ-0001Q9-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:30:43 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjNY1-00016H-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:30:09 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (c-24-5-4-40.client.comcast.net[24.5.4.40]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <20040710192938011009kg3je>; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:29:39 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7AB0C28A-D2A7-11D8-BDEB-000A95D1475E@tony.li> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Tony Li Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:29:36 -0700 To: "john smith" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll try to answer both: 1) A change in BGP next hops should never lead to a change in IGP routes unless someone is doing redistribution. It _can_ of course, change how traffic flows internal to the domain. 2) Hot potato routing is also known as "nearest exit". The basic philosophy is that a transit provider wants to hand off the traffic with the fewest number of fiber miles/router hops/overall expense. Multiple protocols are not required. Tony On Jul 10, 2004, at 3:23 AM, john smith wrote: > > I am amazed no one has answered to this post. > > I have never seen the changes in BGP causing changes in IGP, as we > rarely ever have cases where people do BGP-->IGP. It would bring down > your network though :) > > I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato come into play > only in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. Though, > if I look up the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like > Data Networks by Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not > seem to be what is referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers > and discussions that I see. The case and examples in the books never > talk about multiple protocols to put forth the point of Hot Potato > routing. > > Perhaps someone could help clarify the definations in the 1st place, > > -brgds > JS > > >> From: "ephim era" >> Reply-To: ephim era >> To: idr@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes >> Date: 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000 >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim era wrote : >> >Hi All, >> > >> >Is there a scenario (protocol, deployment, configuration) wherein a >> change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP routes (or >> vice-versa) ? >> > >> >> case excluding redistribution of routes... ? >> >> >Thanks in advance, >> >Ephim >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Idr mailing list >> >Idr@ietf.org >> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Idr mailing list >> Idr@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 10 20:21:57 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08603 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjS6O-0000I8-Ou for idr-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:21:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjS5S-0007lL-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:20:59 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjS4Z-00078J-00; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:20:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjS2D-0006J7-PX; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:17:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjS0W-00065C-QV for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:15:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08391 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjS0V-00068A-AA for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:15:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjRzX-0005oW-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:14:52 -0400 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjRya-0005Rt-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:13:52 -0400 Received: (qmail 36827 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2004 00:13:47 -0000 Received: from 69.37.59.162.adsl.snet.net (HELO workhorse.faster-light.net) (69.37.59.162) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2004 00:13:47 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 69.37.59.162 Received: from workhorse.faster-light.net (localhost.faster-light.net [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.faster-light.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6B0Bd2b084501; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:11:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.faster-light.net) Message-Id: <200407110011.i6B0Bd2b084501@workhorse.faster-light.net> To: "john smith" Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:23:08 -0000." Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:11:39 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@faster-light.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 In message "john smith" writes: > > > I am amazed no one has answered to this post. > > I have never seen the changes in BGP causing changes in IGP, as we rarely > ever have cases where people do BGP-->IGP. It would bring down your network > though :) What's the question you are looking to get answered? > I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato come into play only > in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. Though, if I look up > the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like Data Networks by > Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not seem to be what is > referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers and discussions that I > see. The case and examples in the books never talk about multiple protocols > to put forth the point of Hot Potato routing. > > Perhaps someone could help clarify the definations in the 1st place, > > -brgds > JS I have no idea who Gallager and Bertsekas are or what they wrote but I think Sean Doran or Peter Lothberg originally referred to using the IGP cost criteria in BGP MED as "hot potatoe" and passed across providers as "cold potatoe" (what a legacy). The definition should be clear in draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-experience-protocol-04.txt in Section 7.1.1. "MEDs and Potatoes". Curtis ps - I like the paragraph: Seemingly more intuitive references that fall outside the vegetable kingdom refer to cold potatoe routing as "best exit routing", and hot potatoe routing as "closest exit routing", though vegetable. but it looks like the last two words don't belong there or were part of something truncated like "though vegetable terminology was at least initially much more common" (which we could probably drop anyway). _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 11 11:47:29 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27221 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:47:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjgY6-0003Of-GD for idr-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:47:30 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjgXC-0003DX-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:46:35 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjgWw-00032t-00; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:46:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjgTA-0003xY-OO; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:42:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjgOR-0003Gy-Ss for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:37:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26874 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjgOR-0001cY-0m for idr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:37:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjgNU-0001RT-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:36:33 -0400 Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com ([169.144.68.6]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjgN9-0001Gz-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:36:11 -0400 Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6BFZb58022000; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04746; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:35:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:35:36 -0400 Message-ID: <5551AD75D2C0BC459A85A2CEFAE4F800012FAF@usvissfp01.win.marconi.com> From: "Naidu, Venkata" To: john smith Subject: RE: [Idr] Next Hop changes Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:35:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 John, -> > I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato -> come into play only -> > in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. -> Though, if I look up -> > the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like -> Data Networks by -> > Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not seem -> to be what is -> > referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers and -> discussions that I -> > see. The case and examples in the books never talk about -> multiple protocols -> > to put forth the point of Hot Potato routing. -> > -> > Perhaps someone could help clarify the definations in the -> 1st place, Yes. 'Hot-Potato routing' is an over-used term in routing and leads to confusion. I think, you are referring to book's classical defination: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0132009161/103-4767008-2544628 ?v=glance In data networks, hot-potato routing is nothing to do with BGP or IGPs. Rather more to do with queuing and buffer length estimations. Where packets are never buffered in routers queues and never dropped(unlike today's store and forward technique). Packets are always bounced back till reaches the destination. And this defination of 'get rid of packet from router's buffer as soon as possible' has changed to 'get rid of packet from the domain as soon as possible'. This has been transformed to 'nearest exit' - which is not the original intended definition. Venkata. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 12 10:29:24 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11182 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:29:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk1o5-0002Dn-KA for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:29:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk1n9-0001vR-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:28:28 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk1mP-0001Xq-00; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:27:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk1YH-0004Mu-2l; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:13:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk1AV-00033r-Sg for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:48:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07245 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk1AV-0007kj-7u for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:48:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk19f-0007YQ-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:47:39 -0400 Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk19I-0007Lh-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0400 Received: from [205.168.100.50] (dhcp1.tcb.net [205.168.100.50]) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618CE64355 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:47:26 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: <200407110011.i6B0Bd2b084501@workhorse.faster-light.net> References: <200407110011.i6B0Bd2b084501@workhorse.faster-light.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:47:12 -0600 To: idr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Jul 10, 2004, at 6:11 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > ps - I like the paragraph: > > Seemingly more intuitive references that fall outside the vegetable > kingdom refer to cold potatoe routing as "best exit routing", and > hot potatoe routing as "closest exit routing", though vegetable. > > but it looks like the last two words don't belong there or were part > of something truncated like "though vegetable terminology was at least > initially much more common" (which we could probably drop anyway). Yep, I cleaned this up in the last version, which I still need to post.. And I indeed wasn't referring to buffers, queuing, store & forward, et al., though there is clearly underlying relation. -danny _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 12 18:42:22 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26041 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk9VA-0003da-5l for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:42:24 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk9UC-0003JX-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:41:25 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk9Sv-0002et-00; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:40:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk6lH-0001v5-Ug; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:46:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk6cJ-0007q2-6o; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:35 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04934; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200407121937.PAA04934@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:32 -0400 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGP 4 Implementation Report Author(s) : S. Hares, A. Retana Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt Pages : 86 Date : 2004-7-12 This document provides a survey of the BGP-4 implementation draft- ietf-idr-bgp4-24.txt. After a brief summary, each response is listed. The editor makes no claim as to the accuracy of the information provided. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143426.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143426.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --NextPart-- From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 12 18:50:15 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26901 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk9cn-0006Kp-1G for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:50:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk9c5-00062H-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:49:34 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk9ap-0005Ru-00; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:48:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk6lK-0001vK-9e; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:46:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk6cN-0007q4-A9; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:39 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04942; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200407121937.PAA04942@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:36 -0400 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGP MIB V1 implementation survey Author(s) : S. Hares, D. Hares Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt Pages : 36 Date : 2004-7-12 This document provides of survey of BGP-4 [BGP4] protocol implementing RFC 1657 MIB agents according to the [BGP-v1-MIB] specification. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143433.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143433.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --NextPart-- From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 12 21:58:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12932 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkCZ9-00043c-TH for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:58:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BkCTY-0002k2-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:52:59 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BkCQ1-0001kW-00; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:49:17 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BkCBi-0004ro-R2; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:34:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkAvk-00053M-QJ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:13:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk92C-0006D5-06 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:12:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22124 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:12:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk92A-0002gX-K8 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:12:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk8zH-0001tS-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:09:28 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk8y5-0001I4-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:08:13 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i6CM7h960862 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:07:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6CM7ce88190 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:07:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407122207.i6CM7ce88190@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <64381.1089670058.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:07:38 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter Subject: [Idr] rfc2548bis implementation report X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Folks, Attached is the announcement of the implementation report for draft-ietf-idr-rfc2858bis-06.txt. Yakov. ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:36:06 -0400 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt - --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : MP-BGP implementation Report Author(s) : S. Hares Filename : draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2004-7-12 This document provides a survey of the BGP implementations supporting the multi-protocol extensions as specified in ietf-idr-rfc2858bis-06.txt implementations. After a brief summary, each response is listed. The editor makes no claim as to the accuracy of the information provided. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the mess age. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. - --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" - --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143251.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt - --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143251.I-D@ietf.org> - --OtherAccess-- - --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce - --NextPart-- ------- End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 14 14:55:35 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06209 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:55:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bkoum-0004pB-99 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:55:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bkoto-0004Un-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:54:36 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bkot2-0003xI-00; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:53:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bkohi-0003HX-Ct; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:42:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkjdY-0002Yl-KS for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:17:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15237 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkjdX-00024m-WE for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:17:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BkjcZ-0001hR-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:16:28 -0400 Received: from smtp1.procket.com ([65.174.124.36]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BkjbX-0000wq-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:15:23 -0400 Received: from miata.procket.com (mil0-fw00-d-1.procket.com [65.174.124.60]) by smtp1.procket.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i6EFRduH071387; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange0-0.na.procket.com (exchange0a.na.procket.com [10.1.7.7]) by miata.procket.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i6EDElQb021835; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:14:47 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:14:47 -0700 Message-ID: <131B483ED10A9E48B8D6462A31C9AB240381603B@EXCHANGE0-0.na.procket.com> Thread-Topic: draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt Thread-Index: AcQtR4SjSRXvTlooSSOJ2pcgU0jXdQ367EJQARxB61A= From: "Srihari R. Sangli" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:42:05 -0400 Cc: skh@nexthop.com, Yakov@juniper.net, Enke Chen Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Yakov and Sue, I would like to request that the draft be accepted as an IDR WG document. Thanks. srihari... _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 14 20:07:27 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13964 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BktmZ-0006q5-FA for idr-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:07:27 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BktEZ-0000Fd-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:32:21 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BkskQ-0002DR-03; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:01:10 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BksUp-00053Z-LY; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:45:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkqYR-0002kX-3A; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:40:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkpZQ-00076Y-BQ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:37:36 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10772; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200407141937.PAA10772@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:37:34 -0400 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 Author(s) : E. Chen, S. Sangli Filename : draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2004-7-14 This document defines a new BGP capability termed 'Dynamic Capability', which would allow the dynamic update of capabilities over an established BGP session. This capability would facilitate non-disruptive capability changes by BGP speakers. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-14153320.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-14153320.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --NextPart-- From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 19 11:58:39 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29798 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:58:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmaXJ-0004CG-A0 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:58:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BmaVQ-0003Zy-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:56:44 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BmaU1-00034j-00; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:55:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmaMY-0004N1-Ix; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:47:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bma9Y-0001kE-LQ for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:34:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27938 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bma9X-0005PD-JK for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:34:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bma8e-0005AA-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:33:12 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bma7l-0004fm-00; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:32:17 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i6JFVlBm003814; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:31:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6JFVke11270; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:31:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407191531.i6JFVke11270@merlot.juniper.net> To: zinin@psg.com, fenner@research.att.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <25215.1090251106.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:31:46 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter Cc: skh@nexthop.com, idr@ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, yakov@juniper.net Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-rfc2858bis-06.txt to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Alex and Bill, The IDR WG would like to ask the IESG to advance draft-ietf-idr-rfc2858bis-06.txt to Draft Standard. The implementation report is in draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 19 12:05:19 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00807 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:05:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmadl-0006Vp-Dd for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:05:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bmacq-0006DP-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:04:25 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bmac9-0005vK-00; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:03:41 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Bmac9-0004eq-NG; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:03:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmaSK-0005Sg-Ca; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:53:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmaKA-00048O-Uz for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:45:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28994 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmaKA-0000u4-3j for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:45:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BmaJ5-0000Nr-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:43:59 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BmaI6-0007hS-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:42:58 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i6JFgS932019 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:42:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6JFgNe12536 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:42:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <26467.1090251743.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:42:23 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Folks, We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in two weeks), we could extend the deadline. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 19 14:40:41 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14728 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmd46-0005Pq-8u for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:40:42 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bmd36-00054X-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:39:41 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bmd2C-0004hN-00; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:38:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmcw9-0006bc-7b; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:32:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmcnK-0005Gm-35 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13415 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmcnI-0000NC-VL for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BmcmQ-00005T-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:22:27 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BmclV-0007Ll-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:21:29 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20040719182058015003if4ie> (Authid: hcb8); Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:20:58 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> References: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:20:54 -0400 To: idr@ietf.org From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 8:42 AM -0700 7/19/04, Yakov Rekhter wrote: >Folks, > >We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt >as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). > >It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and >comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need >"yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. > >I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But >if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in >two weeks), we could extend the deadline. > Could I get a procedural clarification? I've always assumed that sooner or later, the different ORF proposals (prefix, AS path, community) would be harmonized. Do they each have to get to IDR I-D before this can happen? _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 19 14:41:48 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14879 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmd5B-0005lC-J9 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:41:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bmd4J-0005Rd-00 for idr-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:40:56 -0400 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bmd3Q-000531-00; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:40:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmcwW-0006jg-8o; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:32:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmcqA-0005fS-Da for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:26:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13623 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:26:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmcq9-0001D9-92 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:26:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bmcp8-0000vn-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:25:14 -0400 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bmco6-0000Oq-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:24:10 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667D92D484D for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31246-01-3 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com (aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com [65.247.36.233]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC222D481E for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:38 -0400 (EDT) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:38 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Thread-Index: AcRtqfhyixDCp0jQSaOKqaJ+YO5cuwAE0hJg From: "Susan Hares" To: "Yakov Rekhter" , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable yes -- looks good. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 11:42 AM To: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Folks, We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004).=20 It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and=20 comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need=20 "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in two weeks), we could extend the deadline. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 19 19:50:05 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10141; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BmhtX-0005ew-Ie; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:50:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmhNb-0002sT-4K; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:17:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmf1G-0002u1-AC for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:45:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01425 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BmeyQ-0002P7-Ha for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:43:00 -0400 Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BmdqK-0001ju-Qj for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:30:33 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247F75D4530; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07805-02; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fall.redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.44.81]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47745D4534; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redback.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fall.redback.com (8.11.0/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) with ESMTP id i6JJ0E810565; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200407191900.i6JJ0E810565@fall.redback.com> To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document In-Reply-To: Message from Yakov Rekhter of "Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:42:23 PDT." <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:00:14 -0700 From: Enke Chen X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Cc: enke@redback.com X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Hi, folks: Yes, I think that we should adopt the draft as an IDR document. 1) The Prefix ORF is already in the IDR Charter: May 04 Submit Outbound Route Filter, Prefix and ASpath ORF draft to IESG as a Proposed Standard In order to reach the milestone, it would be necessary to make the draft an IDR document. 2) The spec is mature and has been implmented and deployed for several years. Thanks. -- Enke > Message-Id: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> > To: idr@ietf.org > Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:42:23 -0700 > From: Yakov Rekhter > Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document > > Folks, > > We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt > as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). > > It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and > comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need > "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. > > I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But > if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in > two weeks), we could extend the deadline. > > Yakov. > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 20 16:20:03 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25647; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bn161-0007Cf-Ge; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:20:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bn0dk-0008LO-3H; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:51:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bn0Rv-0006SC-Tu for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:38:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20220 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:38:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bn0S6-0005pZ-84 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:39:04 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2004 12:39:54 -0700 Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6KJcF8a011953; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-163-52.cisco.com [128.107.163.52]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id AVM45243; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <40FD74A7.2090303@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:38:15 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Rekhter Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document References: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, looks good. R. > Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > Folks, > > We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt > as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). > > It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and > comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need > "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. > > I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But > if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in > two weeks), we could extend the deadline. > > Yakov. > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 20 22:27:00 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02023; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bn6pD-0000R8-77; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:27:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bn2Id-0003cY-NT; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:37:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bn1GD-0004rB-5G for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28016 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com ([169.144.68.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bn1GO-0007oY-1U for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:31:02 -0400 Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6KKU7vL016888; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18780; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <38MX2NBG>; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:06 -0400 Message-ID: <5551AD75D2C0BC459A85A2CEFAE4F800011C1E@usvissfp01.win.marconi.com> From: "Kumar, Srivatsa" To: "'raszuk@cisco.com'" , Yakov Rekhter Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Cc: idr@ietf.org, "Litke, Douglas" X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Looks good to be accepted as an IDR WG Document. Vatsa -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:38 PM To: Yakov Rekhter Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Yes, looks good. R. > Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > Folks, > > We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt > as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). > > It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and > comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need > "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. > > I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But > if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in > two weeks), we could extend the deadline. > > Yakov. > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 01:34:32 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06738; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnWES-0003b7-2i; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:35:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnWC1-000625-Qi; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:32:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnW6V-0003Q3-97 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:26:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06402 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:26:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnW6n-0003Wj-OH for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:27:22 -0400 Received: from [202.178.110.227] (unknown [202.178.110.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE8E64364 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:36 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: References: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:14 -0600 To: idr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I also support the draft and would like to see it become a WG document. I agree with Howard (and think I mentioned it here over a year ago) that we should try to converge the different ORF drafts before we progress them within the WG. -danny On Jul 19, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > Could I get a procedural clarification? I've always assumed that > sooner or later, the different ORF proposals (prefix, AS path, > community) would be harmonized. Do they each have to get to IDR I-D > before this can happen? > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 04:23:37 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29312; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnYs7-0005T4-QJ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:24:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnYl4-0002QA-QD; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:16:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnYgD-0000hm-Fi for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:11:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28675 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:11:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp2.dataconnection.com ([192.91.191.8] helo=smtp2.datcon.co.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnYgi-0005KC-MV for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:12:26 -0400 Received: by beiderbecke.datcon.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:11:22 +0100 Message-ID: <53F74F5A7B94D511841C00B0D0AB16F802B13B03@baker.datcon.co.uk> From: Michael Dell To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" , idr@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:11:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Draft looks good. I would agree with those who have suggested that generating a single ORF draft from the various submissions would be beneficial, and help ensure a consistent approach. > Mike Dell > Networking Protocols Group > Data Connection Ltd > Tel: +44 20 8366 1177 > Fax: +44 20 8367 8501 E-mail: mike.dell@dataconnection.com Web: http://www.dataconnection.com -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov Rekhter Sent: 19 July 2004 16:42 To: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Folks, We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in two weeks), we could extend the deadline. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 14:06:15 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10579; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:06:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnhxz-00066i-ML; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:06:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnho9-0004z0-SQ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:56:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnhlc-0003bN-42 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:54:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09748 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnhmB-0005w6-JS for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:54:41 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C06D2D4A5E for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 60670-01-59 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com (aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com [65.247.36.233]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044C22D483B for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:53:13 -0400 (EDT) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:53:12 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Thread-Index: AcRvrcp8f8g/Y8F9Sre+jwdbmKS+mwAZt2ZA From: "Susan Hares" To: "Danny McPherson" , "idr" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Danny: As a co-author of ORF drafts, I would welcome the convergence of the different drafts. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Danny McPherson [mailto:danny@tcb.net] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:26 AM To: idr Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document I also support the draft and would like to see it become a WG document. I agree with Howard (and think I mentioned it here over a year ago) that we should try to converge the different ORF drafts before we progress them within the WG. -danny On Jul 19, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > Could I get a procedural clarification? I've always assumed that=20 > sooner or later, the different ORF proposals (prefix, AS path,=20 > community) would be harmonized. Do they each have to get to IDR I-D=20 > before this can happen? > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 15:04:25 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16295; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnisJ-0007Kl-PH; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:05:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnihh-0007IU-El; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:54:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BniVd-0002aL-Rs for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:41:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13978 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BniWE-0006qZ-MG for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:42:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290048858D8; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25676-04; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fall.redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.44.81]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C338858CF; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redback.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fall.redback.com (8.11.0/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) with ESMTP id i6MIfW812801; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> To: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document In-Reply-To: Message from Danny McPherson of "Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:14 MDT." Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:32 -0700 From: Enke Chen X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 Cc: enke@redback.com, idr X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 Hi, Danny: > From: Danny McPherson > Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document > Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:14 -0600 > To: idr > > I also support the draft and would like to see it > become a WG document. Thanks for voice your opinion. > I agree with Howard (and think I mentioned it here over a year ago) > that we should try to converge the different ORF drafts before > we progress them within the WG. It is not clear to me what you meant by "converge", and what issue we try to address. If it means "combine" the documents, I do not see benefits but drawbacks. - Except for the common properties described in the base ORF spec, each ORF type has type-specific properties (e.g., encoding and matching). - The implementation of one ORF type is independent of the implementation of another. It is possible that some vendor might choose to implement one, and not another (based on customer requirements). - Having separate drafts would allow us to progress each ORF type independently (when one is implemented and ready, similary to the BGP capability). - It might not be practicle to exhaustively combine the ORF types as more types are being proposed (e.g., max prefix ORF). - Authors of each ORF type should be held accountable for that type, not more and not less :-) Regarding Howard's comment on "harmonized", it seems to me that the ORF types are already "harmonized" as the base ORF spec has already specified procedures for dealing with multiple ORF types. -- Enke > > -danny > > On Jul 19, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > Could I get a procedural clarification? I've always assumed that > > sooner or later, the different ORF proposals (prefix, AS path, > > community) would be harmonized. Do they each have to get to IDR I-D > > before this can happen? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Idr mailing list > > Idr@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 18:21:46 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18481; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 18:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnlxM-0007Co-58; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 18:22:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnjp4-0001i2-6k; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:05:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnjYJ-00029r-71 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:48:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20963 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnjYv-0007xa-4P for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:49:05 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2004 12:51:17 +0000 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6MJlq8a016905; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cisco.com ([64.101.25.142]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id AVO44775; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <410019E7.8050006@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:47:51 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> In-Reply-To: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Enke Chen , Danny McPherson X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c83ccb5cc10e751496398f1233ca9c3a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I must admit that I fully agree with Enke. It seems just impossible to combine all "ORF drafts" whatever this term means simply due to the fact that ORF-type has been designed as an extensible indicator to the purpose of given ORF message. The best analogy would be to request that all BGP attributes should be combined into one draft/rfc when you really can't tell what attribute may be needed tomorrow. Besides even today there seems to be already too many proposals for ORF message use to fit into one readable doc (not to mention author list :). To list them here: prefix ORF, prefix limit ORF, AS-PATH ORF, ext community ORF etc ... So my vote is to keep the base spec with historically first ORF application as is and incrementally and separately be able to add new functionality with new ORF-types. Cheers, R. > Enke Chen wrote: > > Hi, Danny: > > >>From: Danny McPherson >>Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:14 -0600 >>To: idr >> >>I also support the draft and would like to see it >>become a WG document. > > > Thanks for voice your opinion. > > >>I agree with Howard (and think I mentioned it here over a year ago) >>that we should try to converge the different ORF drafts before >>we progress them within the WG. > > > It is not clear to me what you meant by "converge", and what issue we > try to address. > > If it means "combine" the documents, I do not see benefits but drawbacks. > > - Except for the common properties described in the base ORF spec, > each ORF type has type-specific properties (e.g., encoding and > matching). > > - The implementation of one ORF type is independent of the > implementation of another. It is possible that some vendor might > choose to implement one, and not another (based on customer > requirements). > > - Having separate drafts would allow us to progress each ORF type > independently (when one is implemented and ready, similary to > the BGP capability). > > - It might not be practicle to exhaustively combine the ORF types > as more types are being proposed (e.g., max prefix ORF). > > - Authors of each ORF type should be held accountable for that > type, not more and not less :-) > > Regarding Howard's comment on "harmonized", it seems to me that the > ORF types are already "harmonized" as the base ORF spec has already > specified procedures for dealing with multiple ORF types. > > -- Enke > > >>-danny >> >>On Jul 19, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >> >> >>>Could I get a procedural clarification? I've always assumed that >>>sooner or later, the different ORF proposals (prefix, AS path, >>>community) would be harmonized. Do they each have to get to IDR I-D >>>before this can happen? >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Idr mailing list >>>Idr@ietf.org >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Idr mailing list >>Idr@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 19:16:29 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27691; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnmoK-0001IB-5P; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:17:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnmTb-000281-Cv; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 18:55:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnkHs-0008Iq-JA for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:35:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28546 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnkIU-0001ug-IM for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:36:11 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2004 16:40:15 -0400 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Received: from cisco.com (router.cisco.com [64.101.214.30]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6MKYwGX010685; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:34:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.101.214.202] (dhcp-64-101-215-162.cisco.com [64.101.215.162]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA25982; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jgs@router Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:34:54 -0400 To: Enke Chen From: "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Cc: idr X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Seems reasonable to make draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt a WG document. I also agree with Enke's recent comments regarding why not to merge the various ORF-type documents. The only benefit that it appears would be realized is that you'd have a one-stop shop for all the ORF types (that existed as of the publication of the merged doc). That doesn't seem compelling. --John _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 19:49:07 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01237; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnnJs-0002A1-0L; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:49:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnn4v-0000Qt-1Z; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:34:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnmkR-0003Iv-Ca for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:13:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27421 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:13:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnml4-0001DE-DL for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:13:51 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20040722231237014003fpp0e> (Authid: hcb8); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:12:37 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:12:34 -0400 To: idr From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 At 11:41 AM -0700 7/22/04, Enke Chen wrote: >Hi, Danny: > >> From: Danny McPherson >> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document >> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:14 -0600 >> To: idr >> >> I also support the draft and would like to see it >> become a WG document. > >Thanks for voice your opinion. > >> I agree with Howard (and think I mentioned it here over a year ago) >> that we should try to converge the different ORF drafts before >> we progress them within the WG. > >It is not clear to me what you meant by "converge", and what issue we >try to address. > >If it means "combine" the documents, I do not see benefits but drawbacks. I meant combine. While I recognize there can be good reasons to have vendor flexibility, especially in the case of BGP, the overall Internet benefits from interoperability. My perspective is not always from that of a vendor. Indeed, it unfortunately has to include certain of the less clueful of users. To clarify, I would want to see at least the equivalent of an overall applicability document or other overview that discusses the tradeoffs of the various types. I don't have a problem with separate detailed implementation specifications, but the proliferation of options, in my experience, is causing confusion among at least some users. > > - Except for the common properties described in the base ORF spec, > each ORF type has type-specific properties (e.g., encoding and > matching). That is relevant to implementers. A reasonable customer perspective is to have the various alternatives available in one place so the most appropriate one can be chosen. > > - The implementation of one ORF type is independent of the > implementation of another. It is possible that some vendor might > choose to implement one, and not another (based on customer > requirements). Anything is possible. I would not regard this as a good thing, in the interest of interoperability. In this specific case, I could see a vendor perhaps not implementing all at once due to resources, but I really find it hard to imagine a customer, who has accepted the basic logic of ORF, wanting to be limited to one or another type. We are not talking here of exotic types. Every type involved is in routine use in BGP configurations where ORF is not used. > > - Having separate drafts would allow us to progress each ORF type > independently (when one is implemented and ready, similary to > the BGP capability). Once operators, and especially end enterprises, start using ORF to a significant degree, I need to be convinced that it is a good thing if a series of functionally related capabilities shows up in random order. > > - It might not be practicle to exhaustively combine the ORF types > as more types are being proposed (e.g., max prefix ORF). Then there can be versions. There could be an applicability document. > > - Authors of each ORF type should be held accountable for that > type, not more and not less :-) > >Regarding Howard's comment on "harmonized", it seems to me that the >ORF types are already "harmonized" as the base ORF spec has already >specified procedures for dealing with multiple ORF types. > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 19:54:48 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01637; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:54:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnnPN-0002FR-SD; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:55:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnn6j-0002GL-0F; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:36:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnmqn-0000Bk-Ms for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:19:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28077 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnmrP-0001Ne-5r for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:20:26 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004072223191101100dtgi0e> (Authid: hcb8); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:19:11 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <410019E7.8050006@cisco.com> References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> <410019E7.8050006@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:19:05 -0400 To: idr From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 At 12:47 PM -0700 7/22/04, Robert Raszuk wrote: >I must admit that I fully agree with Enke. > >It seems just impossible to combine all "ORF drafts" whatever this >term means simply due to the fact that ORF-type has been designed as >an extensible indicator to the purpose of given ORF message. > >The best analogy would be to request that all BGP attributes should >be combined into one draft/rfc when you really can't tell what >attribute may be needed tomorrow. > >Besides even today there seems to be already too many proposals for >ORF message use to fit into one readable doc (not to mention author >list :). To list them here: prefix ORF, prefix limit ORF, AS-PATH >ORF, ext community ORF etc ... If these were all meant to be Experimental, that would be one thing. The idea that so many types are evolving that they cannot go into one readable document cries for an application of Occam's Razor. It's not that any of these are radically new BGP capabilities. Most exist in standards, and most are implemented in non-ORF BGP. Now, I always tell of the time that I was giving a seminar at NASA, took a break, and listened to the instructor in the next room, who was discussing the Shuttle propulsion system. I could have sworn I heard him say "Hey, come on. This is rocket science, not BGP." Is it rocket science to stop and ask "what are the operational benefits of each of these additional types", and record some of that discussion? Alternatively, the question could be posed "of all functions that are used, either vendor-specific or standards-based, in eBGP route selection, which should NOT be available in an ORF method, and why or why not?" _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 20:06:35 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02370; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnnam-0002Ph-MW; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:07:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnnSc-0007LX-8t; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:58:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnnAU-0005pz-Od for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:40:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00429 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnnB8-0001zC-DE for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:40:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1A12D4919 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 81397-01-24 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com (aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com [65.247.36.233]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45F62D492E for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:39:26 -0400 (EDT) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:39:26 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Thread-Index: AcRwQfvF1b50/ZgoQAOno/SxhPGrwwAAwFmg From: "Susan Hares" To: "John G. Scudder" , "Enke Chen" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: idr X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John and Enke: I want to change my mind on the merging after further discussions. I would not like to merge the drafts. Sue -----Original Message----- From: John G. Scudder [mailto:jgs@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:35 PM To: Enke Chen Cc: idr Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Seems reasonable to make draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt a WG document. I also agree with Enke's recent comments regarding why not to merge=20 the various ORF-type documents. The only benefit that it appears=20 would be realized is that you'd have a one-stop shop for all the ORF=20 types (that existed as of the publication of the merged doc). That=20 doesn't seem compelling. --John _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 21:33:27 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07542; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnowq-0003VD-6p; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:34:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnort-0000yw-6T; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnomW-0005yv-ID for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:23:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06854 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:23:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnomz-0003K2-Im for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:24:10 -0400 Received: from [202.178.110.227] (unknown [202.178.110.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8169F6436B for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:23:22 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:23:02 -0600 To: idr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Jul 22, 2004, at 12:41 PM, Enke Chen wrote: > If it means "combine" the documents, I do not see benefits but > drawbacks. > > - Except for the common properties described in the base ORF spec, > each ORF type has type-specific properties (e.g., encoding and > matching). Of course. > - The implementation of one ORF type is independent of the > implementation of another. It is possible that some vendor might > choose to implement one, and not another (based on customer > requirements). Of course. > - Having separate drafts would allow us to progress each ORF type > independently (when one is implemented and ready, similary to > the BGP capability). > > - It might not be practicle to exhaustively combine the ORF types > as more types are being proposed (e.g., max prefix ORF). I agree. I only suggest doing so for proposals to date that the WG believes make sense. E.g., I'm not sure about value of max- prefix ORF Type, so I do understand your concern. However, I see no reason prefix & attribute-based ORF Types should be in a slew of independent drafts from the start. > - Authors of each ORF type should be held accountable for that > type, not more and not less :-) Blah.. It's going to be a WG document.. This, i.e., Authors, is the heart of the issue. > Regarding Howard's comment on "harmonized", it seems to me that the > ORF types are already "harmonized" as the base ORF spec has already > specified procedures for dealing with multiple ORF types. The base specification includes prefix ORF, why not other ORF Types that the WG believes should be included? Or should we take prefix out as well and have a truly base specification so as to not prolong progress in the WG (I'm kidding). It just seems the many ORF Type drafts should be coupled into a single specification while we still have the opportunity, if the WG believes they have merit. Else there'll be even more documents folks will need to go trudging through to find the bits their interested in. Of course, I really don't feel strongly enough about this to continue supporting my position (i.e., I'm busy :-), but it just seems a bit silly to me. I would like to see this work progress in the WG, regardless. And it is in the charter, so.. -danny _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 22 22:44:57 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22607; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnq45-0004Ha-Gt; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:45:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnpvM-0000oT-NI; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:36:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnpsN-0006mm-O9 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:33:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21774 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnpt1-00047Q-Ux for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:34:18 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2004 19:35:05 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.143]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6N2Wx8a001944; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from achandra@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id TAA03101; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:32:58 -0700 From: Chandrashekhar Appanna To: Yakov Rekhter Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Message-ID: <20040723023258.GA715@cisco.com> References: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Yes, I think this should become a WG doc. On the topic of merging the various ORF type docs, if there was a clear consensus or need, I am sure the original authors would have added them all in the base spec. Since they did not and we are seeing the individual submissions, I would leave it that way so that only the ones required will survive.... - Chandra Appanna. On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:42:23AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > Folks, > > We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt > as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). > > It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and > comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need > "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. > > I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But > if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in > two weeks), we could extend the deadline. > > Yakov. > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 23 01:17:57 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01861; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnsS8-0006FN-F1; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:18:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnsQV-0001dS-AK; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:16:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnsL6-0008Aw-Sk for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:11:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01596 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnsLl-0006BY-Hh for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:12:08 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AEA3018AA; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16208-09; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fall.redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.44.81]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1C23018A6; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redback.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fall.redback.com (8.11.0/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) with ESMTP id i6N5BD815610; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200407230511.i6N5BD815610@fall.redback.com> To: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document In-Reply-To: Message from Danny McPherson of "Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:23:02 MDT." Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:11:13 -0700 From: Enke Chen X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Cc: enke@redback.com, idr X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 > Message-Id: > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Danny McPherson > Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document > Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:23:02 -0600 > To: idr > [snip] > > > Regarding Howard's comment on "harmonized", it seems to me that the > > ORF types are already "harmonized" as the base ORF spec has already > > specified procedures for dealing with multiple ORF types. > > The base specification includes prefix ORF, why not other ORF Types that > the WG believes should be included? Or should we take prefix out > as well and have a truly base specification so as to not prolong > progress in the WG (I'm kidding). You must refer to a very early version (from years ago) which defined a prefix ORF that had no similarity with the current prefix ORF, and was removed years ago. The current ORF base spec includes only two very simple ORF types (community ORF and ext-community ORF). Regards, -- Enke _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 23 01:29:00 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA02411; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:28:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnscp-0006M4-C3; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:29:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnsah-0007OP-Md; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:27:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnsUN-0003wq-9R for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:20:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA02067 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnsV3-0006Hg-Pk for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:21:43 -0400 Received: from [202.178.110.227] (unknown [202.178.110.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4A164371 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:21:08 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: <200407230511.i6N5BD815610@fall.redback.com> References: <200407230511.i6N5BD815610@fall.redback.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <0EBDB3CE-DC68-11D8-B680-000393D54EA6@tcb.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:20:48 -0600 To: idr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Jul 22, 2004, at 11:11 PM, Enke Chen wrote: > > You must refer to a very early version Ahh, yes, my mistake. I'd forgot about draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-* danny _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 23 10:18:09 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26459; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo0t0-0007R9-IG; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:18:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo0iB-0002gO-IC; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:07:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo0eE-00008J-7B for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24365 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo0ex-00079O-Ft for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:04:30 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414852D4B01; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 25176-02-30; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236FA2D4B00; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i6NE35h22429; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:05 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Chandrashekhar Appanna Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Message-ID: <20040723140304.GA20535@nexthop.com> References: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> <20040723023258.GA715@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040723023258.GA715@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: Yakov Rekhter , idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:32:58PM -0700, Chandrashekhar Appanna wrote: > Yes, I think this should become a WG doc. I also think it should become a WG document (but still need to do a quick read-through of the current draft). > On the topic of merging the various ORF type docs, if there > was a clear consensus or need, I am sure the original authors > would have added them all in the base spec. To nitpick a little bit, ORFs, like extended communities, seem to strongly have come out of certain vendor's needs for certain technology to solve a specific problem. The fact that they were adaptable to a more generic tool speaks well of the authors of the specifications. However, I think that a more generic solution would have done us well in each case. ORFs are extremely coarse policy. Extended communities have already been criticized for not being flexibile enough. Yet each solves the problems for their original problem space well enough. Rough consensus and all that. :-) > Since they did not > and we are seeing the individual submissions, I would leave it > that way so that only the ones required will survive.... I'd generally agree. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 23 10:34:17 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27744; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:34:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo18d-0007hP-5S; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:35:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo11x-0004u1-1a; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:28:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo10l-00048b-4m for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27305 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo11W-0007ac-PH for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:27:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5022D484A; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 26754-03-24; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFA92D482A; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i6NEQNf23473; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:23 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Message-ID: <20040723142623.GB20535@nexthop.com> References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Cc: idr X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:23:02PM -0600, Danny McPherson wrote: > I agree. I only suggest doing so for proposals to date that the > WG believes make sense. E.g., I'm not sure about value of max- > prefix ORF Type, so I do understand your concern. However, > I see no reason prefix & attribute-based ORF Types should be in > a slew of independent drafts from the start. One of the problems of combining the specifications (which I don't think we should do) is that it ties them all together in the standards process. As it stands, in order to implement the base specification, it's somewhat implied that you're going to implement the community and extended community ORFs. Thankfully this isn't outright required in the base document (if you didn't care to implement them), but this isn't clear enough that our respective organizations wont have a little jousting to do with comformance test vendors that so often make our lives... interesting. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 23 16:24:50 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25180; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo6bu-0006Br-FA; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:25:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo6WG-00051b-C4; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:19:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo6Uh-0004mr-5t for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:18:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24836 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:18:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bay17-f27.bay17.hotmail.com ([64.4.43.77] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo6VT-00066d-Aq for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:19:07 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:17:39 -0700 Received: from 219.65.136.121 by by17fd.bay17.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:17:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [219.65.136.121] X-Originating-Email: [johnsmith0302@hotmail.com] X-Sender: johnsmith0302@hotmail.com From: "john smith" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:17:39 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2004 20:17:39.0825 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A439610:01C470F2] X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8 Howard, Let us assume for a minute that these are not "experimental". Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this? -thanks >From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" >To: idr >Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:19:05 -0400 > >At 12:47 PM -0700 7/22/04, Robert Raszuk wrote: >>I must admit that I fully agree with Enke. >> >>It seems just impossible to combine all "ORF drafts" whatever this term >>means simply due to the fact that ORF-type has been designed as an >>extensible indicator to the purpose of given ORF message. >> >>The best analogy would be to request that all BGP attributes should be >>combined into one draft/rfc when you really can't tell what attribute may >>be needed tomorrow. >> >>Besides even today there seems to be already too many proposals for ORF >>message use to fit into one readable doc (not to mention author list :). >>To list them here: prefix ORF, prefix limit ORF, AS-PATH ORF, ext >>community ORF etc ... > >If these were all meant to be Experimental, that would be one thing. The >idea that so many types are evolving that they cannot go into one readable >document cries for an application of Occam's Razor. > >It's not that any of these are radically new BGP capabilities. Most exist >in standards, and most are implemented in non-ORF BGP. Now, I always tell >of the time that I was giving a seminar at NASA, took a break, and listened >to the instructor in the next room, who was discussing the Shuttle >propulsion system. I could have sworn I heard him say "Hey, come on. This >is rocket science, not BGP." > >Is it rocket science to stop and ask "what are the operational benefits of >each of these additional types", and record some of that discussion? >Alternatively, the question could be posed "of all functions that are used, >either vendor-specific or standards-based, in eBGP route selection, which >should NOT be available in an ORF method, and why or why not?" > >_______________________________________________ >Idr mailing list >Idr@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 23 16:40:42 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26259; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:40:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo6rH-0006Qr-LC; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:41:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo6jE-00087j-P5; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:33:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo6fm-0007Mq-Pc for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:29:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25610 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo6gZ-0006Gp-NT for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:30:34 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004072320290701400es08ve> (Authid: hcb8); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:29:08 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:29:04 -0400 To: idr@ietf.org From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 At 8:17 PM +0000 7/23/04, john smith wrote: >Howard, > >Let us assume for a minute that these are not "experimental". > > >Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this? I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point. Are you referring to the lack of framework for what to implement as ORF, or something else? > > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 23 17:03:08 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27199; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo7Cz-0006hR-33; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:04:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo78G-0005tO-IW; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:59:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo73U-0004Z9-Kf for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:54:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26841 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:54:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bay17-f6.bay17.hotmail.com ([64.4.43.56] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo74J-0006bO-UH for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:55:04 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:53:40 -0700 Received: from 219.65.136.121 by by17fd.bay17.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:53:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [219.65.136.121] X-Originating-Email: [johnsmith0302@hotmail.com] X-Sender: johnsmith0302@hotmail.com From: "john smith" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:53:39 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2004 20:53:40.0220 (UTC) FILETIME=[21F5B3C0:01C470F7] X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 >> >>Let us assume for a minute that these are not "experimental". >> >> >>Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this? > > >I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point. Are you referring to the lack >of framework for what to implement as ORF, or something else? ... all I am saying is that given a "vendor neutral" framework, as to why things (may)"or"(may not be better using ORFs), will people who believe ORF helps, stand up and say why and why not it should be used, and under what circumstances, instead of "colouring" their bits and bytes as they wish to? It is exactly what you said in your previous email, I just added to it and hoped to clarify it. If 2 people wish to do the same thing, it makes more sense for them to argue why not A instead of B rather than just giving their own proposals. ..I always believed WGs was the place where people can argue and talk openly, so that the younger generation can look at it and learn from the archives, but perhaps I am mistaken.... -thanks _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 23 18:47:33 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02795; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo8q4-0007rY-Bs; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:48:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo8ds-0001QR-Dp; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:35:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo8aW-0000Wk-V7 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:32:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02140 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo8bL-0007fT-UQ for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:33:18 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004072322315001400eui3oe> (Authid: hcb8); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:31:51 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:31:46 -0400 To: idr@ietf.org From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 At 8:53 PM +0000 7/23/04, john smith wrote: >>>Let us assume for a minute that these are not "experimental". >>> >>> >>>Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this? >> >> >>I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point. Are you referring to >>the lack of framework for what to implement as ORF, or something >>else? > >... all I am saying is that given a "vendor neutral" framework, as >to why things (may)"or"(may not be better using ORFs), will people >who believe ORF helps, stand up and say why and why not it should be >used, and under what circumstances, instead of "colouring" their >bits and bytes as they wish to? > >It is exactly what you said in your previous email, I just added to >it and hoped to clarify it. > >If 2 people wish to do the same thing, it makes more sense for them >to argue why not A instead of B rather than just giving their own >proposals. > >..I always believed WGs was the place where people can argue and >talk openly, so that the younger generation can look at it and learn >from the archives, but perhaps I am mistaken.... Thank you for the excellent clarification. Yes, this is one of my concern. Many, if not most, new technologies originate with vendors. It does become a question if variations on a theme sometimes can consolidate. Indeed, some of the ORF work could meaningfully flow back into single-router BGP. Now, I may have egg on my face because I missed a proposal, but I don't think I've seen a general proposal to put prefix-limit-exceeded into the BGP MIB. Yes, I recognize the actual (local) prefix limit functionality is implementation specific, but if it's worth doing remotely, it's worth doing locally. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 25 20:04:41 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05202; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bot0D-00050l-L6; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:06:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bosx5-00082W-6I; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:02:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoswG-0007uE-PD for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05006 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BosxW-0004ye-J3 for idr@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:03:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8732D497C; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 64579-01-8; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402962D4941; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i6Q01G428261; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:16 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Message-ID: <20040726000116.GA27886@nexthop.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:31:46PM -0400, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > Now, I may have egg on my face because I missed a > proposal, but I don't think I've seen a general proposal to put > prefix-limit-exceeded into the BGP MIB. Yes, I recognize the actual > (local) prefix limit functionality is implementation specific, but if > it's worth doing remotely, it's worth doing locally. Speaking as MIB editor, IMO the MIB should reflect protocol elements. If we put max prefix into some ORF, it will probably make it into the extension MIB for that ORF. But, to provide a counter example, the l3vpn group decided to put in "water marks" to represent the prefix limits. This was outside of the protocol, but desired by the working group. Similarly, if there is WG consensus on having this in the MIB, we can add it regardless of whether we choose to do such a thing for an ORF MIB that carries prefix limits. (Similar if we do a dynamic capability extention MIB to accomodate the other major proposal.) However, if we choose to put in our own "water marks", we risk conflict with the l3vpn implementation of the same since we carry 2547 type reachability over BGP too. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 26 02:12:53 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA01279; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:12:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Boykb-0000Ll-Do; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:14:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoyeG-0000Lt-En; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:07:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoydX-00083c-D7 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:06:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA25344 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:06:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Boyer-0000HL-EZ for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:08:22 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004072606062601500imfrge> (Authid: hcb8); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:06:26 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040726000116.GA27886@nexthop.com> References: <20040726000116.GA27886@nexthop.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:06:22 -0400 To: idr@ietf.org From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 At 8:01 PM -0400 7/25/04, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:31:46PM -0400, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >> Now, I may have egg on my face because I missed a >> proposal, but I don't think I've seen a general proposal to put >> prefix-limit-exceeded into the BGP MIB. Yes, I recognize the actual >> (local) prefix limit functionality is implementation specific, but if >> it's worth doing remotely, it's worth doing locally. > >Speaking as MIB editor, IMO the MIB should reflect protocol elements. >If we put max prefix into some ORF, it will probably make it into >the extension MIB for that ORF. > >But, to provide a counter example, the l3vpn group decided to >put in "water marks" to represent the prefix limits. This was >outside of the protocol, but desired by the working group. Similarly, >if there is WG consensus on having this in the MIB, we can add >it regardless of whether we choose to do such a thing for an ORF >MIB that carries prefix limits. (Similar if we do a dynamic capability >extention MIB to accomodate the other major proposal.) > >However, if we choose to put in our own "water marks", we risk >conflict with the l3vpn implementation of the same since we carry >2547 type reachability over BGP too. First, maybe it's just the way that my mind works, but I've always conceptualized ORF capabilities as having a certain symmetry. You are moving an acceptance rule on your router to be an advertising rule on your peer. This model worked nicely for me, as long as the acceptance rules were on protocol elements. Prefix-limit, however, isn't a protocol element per se, but more of an observation of protocol behavior. Let me draw an analogy for "observation": flapping isn't a protocol element, but a measurement, potentially to be used in damping, is an observation. Is there a more accepted or elegant way to describe "observation" as a (using the term loosely) type in MIBs? Second, is it plausible to port the l3vpn "water marks" to general BGP as well as VPN MP-BGP information? _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 26 11:58:55 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21226; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bp7tp-0000dB-DK; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:00:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bp7ei-0004dn-TU; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:44:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bp7V3-000158-8L for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:34:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15649; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bp7WS-0006x2-Dr; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:36:17 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i6QFYF999774; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:34:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6QFYAe64187; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:34:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407261534.i6QFYAe64187@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org, agenda@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23095.1090856050.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:34:10 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Cc: skh@nexthop.com, yakov@juniper.net Subject: [Idr] IDR WG agenda X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Folks, Attached is the IDR WG agenda. Yakov. --------------------------------------------------------------- Document Status Update (5 mins) S. Hares, Y. Rekhter Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 (10 mins) draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt Enke Chen, Srihari R. Sangli Advertisement of the Group Best Paths in BGP (15 mins) draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt E. Chen, N. Chen Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions (15 mins) draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt N. Dubois, B. Decraene, B. Fondeviole Carrying ATM reachability information in BGP (15 mins) draft-ck-bgp-atm-nlri-00.txt Chaitanya Kodeboyina, Chris Metz, Peter Busschbach Group Cooperative Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4 (10 mins) draft-muley-hares-idr-orf-order-00.txt Praveen Muley, Susan Hares, Keyur Patel Preserving BGP Next-Hops (10 mins) draft-raggarwa-bgp-nexthop-rewrite-00.txt Rahul Aggarwal, Chaitanya Kodeboyina MDT SAFI (10 mins) draft-nalawade-idr-mdt-safi-01.txt Gargi Nalawade, Arjun Sreekantiah _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 26 17:35:21 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11607; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BpD9T-0000B8-0f; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:36:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BpD6h-0007HG-Qm; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:34:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BpCzk-0005d2-8E for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:26:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11164 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:26:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BpD1C-0008SS-Ks for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:28:23 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i6QLQJBm064455 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:26:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6QLQJe51339 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:26:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407262126.i6QLQJe51339@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <33495.1090877179.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:26:19 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Subject: [Idr] small correction to the agenda X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Folks, Attached are the agenda with few minor changes (the changes reflect the time allotted to each presentation). Yakov. ------------------------------------------------------------- Document Status Update (5 mins) S. Hares, Y. Rekhter Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 (10 mins) draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt Enke Chen, Srihari R. Sangli Advertisement of the Group Best Paths in BGP (20 mins) draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt E. Chen, N. Chen Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions (20 mins) draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt N. Dubois, B. Decraene, B. Fondeviole Carrying ATM reachability information in BGP (20 mins) draft-ck-bgp-atm-nlri-00.txt Chaitanya Kodeboyina, Chris Metz, Peter Busschbach Group Cooperative Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4 (10 mins) draft-muley-hares-idr-orf-order-00.txt Praveen Muley, Susan Hares, Keyur Patel Preserving BGP Next-Hops (10 mins) draft-raggarwa-bgp-nexthop-rewrite-00.txt Rahul Aggarwal, Chaitanya Kodeboyina MDT SAFI (15 mins) draft-nalawade-idr-mdt-safi-01.txt Gargi Nalawade, Arjun Sreekantiah _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 26 17:38:45 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11823; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:38:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BpDCk-0000FV-SB; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:40:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BpD6n-0007IB-AT; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:34:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BpD2i-0006AT-4U for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:29:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11316 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BpD4B-0008Vk-IF for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:31:27 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i6QLTOBm064476; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:29:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6QLTOe52061; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:29:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407262129.i6QLTOe52061@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <34617.1090877364.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:29:24 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Cc: skh@nexthop.com Subject: [Idr] presentations at the IDR WG meeting X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Folks, Those presenting at the IDR WG meeting please note that we MUST have your slides well in advance. So, please your slides to Sue and myself no late than Sunday (8/1) evening. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 31 05:30:34 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17022; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BqqEk-00061W-El; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:33:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BqqAQ-0003vy-2X; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:28:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bqq9t-0003fI-Ty for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:28:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16906 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:28:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [203.199.83.248] (helo=rediffmail.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BqqCI-0005z0-Ug for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:30:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 24457 invoked by uid 510); 31 Jul 2004 09:27:55 -0000 Date: 31 Jul 2004 09:27:55 -0000 Message-ID: <20040731092755.24455.qmail@webmail36.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (203.197.138.199) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 31 jul 2004 09:27:55 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "ephim era" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++) X-Scan-Signature: b2809b6f39decc6de467dcf252f42af1 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ephim era List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2138205316==" Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++) X-Scan-Signature: c54bc2f42d02429833c0ca4b8725abd7 This is a multipart mime message --===============2138205316== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Next_1091266075---0-203.199.83.248-24444" This is a multipart mime message --Next_1091266075---0-203.199.83.248-24444 Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A
=0AFolks,
=0A
=0ASorry, I wasn't in town. I was working on = some routing table implementation and redistribution of routes .... (RFC 17= 45 BGP -- OSPF interactions) it's been made historical... but do vendors pr= ovide that feature ? it's available on cisco tho' say when I redist static = into BGP(AS A) redist BGP to IGP ( in transit AS B) and back from IGP to BG= P in at border of transit --> BGP(AS C) I saw the origin being lost from= incomplete to IGP!!! (safely assume IGP as OSPFv2)
=0A
=0AHow valid = is this RFC 1745... I understand that BGP route reflectors are designed to = avoid BGP-IGP redistibution in transit AS. But RR mechanism is pretty new. = Should any new implementatino of BGP & OSPF support (least partally) RF= C 1745 ?
=0A
=0AThanks in advance,
=0A-Ephim
=0A
=0A
=0A = Sun, 11 Jul 2004 Tony Li wrote :
=0A>I'll try to answer both:
=0A&= gt;
=0A>1) A change in BGP next hops should never lead to a change in= IGP routes unless someone is doing redistribution.  It _can_ of cours= e,
=0A>change how traffic flows internal to the domain.
=0A>=0A>2) Hot potato routing is also known as "nearest exit".&nb= sp; The basic philosophy is that a transit provider wants to hand off the t= raffic
=0A>with the fewest number of fiber miles/router hops/overall = expense.  Multiple protocols are not required.
=0A>
=0A>To= ny
=0A>
=0A>
=0A>On Jul 10, 2004, at 3:23 AM, john smith = wrote:
=0A>
=0A>>
=0A>>I am amazed no one has answe= red to this post.
=0A>>
=0A>>I have never seen the change= s in BGP causing changes in IGP, as we rarely ever have cases where people = do BGP-->IGP. It would bring down your network though :)
=0A>><= BR>=0A>>I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato come i= nto play only in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. Thoug= h, if I look up the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like Dat= a Networks by Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not seem to b= e what is referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers and d= iscussions that I see. The case and examples in the books never talk about = multiple protocols to put forth the point of Hot Potato routing.
=0A>= >
=0A>>Perhaps someone could help clarify the definations in th= e 1st place,
=0A>>
=0A>>-brgds
=0A>>JS
=0A>= ;>
=0A>>
=0A>>> From: "ephim  era" &= lt;ephemera6380@rediffmail.com>
=0A>>>Reply-To: ephim  = era <ephemera6380@rediffmail.com>
=0A>>>To: idr@ietf.org<= BR>=0A>>>Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes
=0A>>>Dat= e: 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000
=0A>>>
=0A>>>
=0A&= gt;>>
=0A>>>
=0A>>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim&= nbsp; era wrote :
=0A>>> >Hi All,
=0A>>> >=0A>>> >Is there a scenario (protocol, deployment, configurati= on) wherein a change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP rou= tes (or vice-versa) ?
=0A>>> >
=0A>>>
=0A>= >>  case excluding redistribution of routes... ?
=0A>>&= gt;
=0A>>> >Thanks in advance,
=0A>>> >Ephim<= BR>=0A>>> >
=0A>>> >____________________________= ___________________
=0A>>> >Idr mailing list
=0A>>&= gt; >Idr@ietf.org
=0A>>> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/l= istinfo/idr
=0A>>>
=0A>>>__________________________= _____________________
=0A>>>Idr mailing list
=0A>>>= Idr@ietf.org
=0A>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr=0A>>
=0A>>_______________________________________________= __________________
=0A>>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service= : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/virus
=0A>><= BR>=0A>>
=0A>>______________________________________________= _
=0A>>Idr mailing list
=0A>>Idr@ietf.org
=0A>>h= ttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
=0A>>
=0A>
=0A&= gt;
=0A>_______________________________________________
=0A>Idr= mailing list
=0A>Idr@ietf.org
=0A>https://www1.ietf.org/mailma= n/listinfo/idr
=0A=0A

=0A

=0A=0A --Next_1091266075---0-203.199.83.248-24444 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0AFolks,=0A=0ASorry, I wasn't in town. I was working on some routing table= implementation and redistribution of routes .... (RFC 1745 BGP -- OSPF int= eractions) it's been made historical... but do vendors provide that feature= ? it's available on cisco tho' say when I redist static into BGP(AS A) red= ist BGP to IGP ( in transit AS B) and back from IGP to BGP in at border of = transit --> BGP(AS C) I saw the origin being lost from incomplete to IGP!!!= (safely assume IGP as OSPFv2)=0A=0AHow valid is this RFC 1745... I underst= and that BGP route reflectors are designed to avoid BGP-IGP redistibution i= n transit AS. But RR mechanism is pretty new. Should any new implementatino= of BGP & OSPF support (least partally) RFC 1745 ?=0A=0AThanks in advance,= =0A-Ephim=0A=0A=0A Sun, 11 Jul 2004 Tony Li wrote :=0A>I'll try to answer b= oth:=0A>=0A>1) A change in BGP next hops should never lead to a change in I= GP routes unless someone is doing redistribution. It _can_ of course,=0A>c= hange how traffic flows internal to the domain.=0A>=0A>2) Hot potato routin= g is also known as "nearest exit". The basic philosophy is that a transit = provider wants to hand off the traffic=0A>with the fewest number of fiber m= iles/router hops/overall expense. Multiple protocols are not required.=0A>= =0A>Tony=0A>=0A>=0A>On Jul 10, 2004, at 3:23 AM, john smith wrote:=0A>=0A>>= =0A>>I am amazed no one has answered to this post.=0A>>=0A>>I have never se= en the changes in BGP causing changes in IGP, as we rarely ever have cases = where people do BGP-->IGP. It would bring down your network though :)=0A>>= =0A>>I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato come into play = only in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. Though, if I l= ook up the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like Data Network= s by Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not seem to be what is= referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers and discussions that I s= ee. The case and examples in the books never talk about multiple protocols = to put forth the point of Hot Potato routing.=0A>>=0A>>Perhaps someone coul= d help clarify the definations in the 1st place,=0A>>=0A>>-brgds=0A>>JS=0A>= >=0A>>=0A>>> From: "ephim era" =0A>>>Reply-To= : ephim era =0A>>>To: idr@ietf.org=0A>>>Subje= ct: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes=0A>>>Date: 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000=0A>>>= =0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim era wrote :=0A>>> >Hi Al= l,=0A>>> >=0A>>> >Is there a scenario (protocol, deployment, configuration)= wherein a change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP routes= (or vice-versa) ?=0A>>> >=0A>>>=0A>>> case excluding redistribution of ro= utes... ?=0A>>>=0A>>> >Thanks in advance,=0A>>> >Ephim=0A>>> >=0A>>> >_____= __________________________________________=0A>>> >Idr mailing list=0A>>> >I= dr@ietf.org=0A>>> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr=0A>>>=0A>>>__= _____________________________________________=0A>>>Idr mailing list=0A>>>Id= r@ietf.org=0A>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr=0A>>=0A>>_______= __________________________________________________________=0A>>MSN 8 with e= -mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=3D= features/virus=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>______________________________________________= _=0A>>Idr mailing list=0A>>Idr@ietf.org=0A>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/l= istinfo/idr=0A>>=0A>=0A>=0A>_______________________________________________= =0A>Idr mailing list=0A>Idr@ietf.org=0A>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listi= nfo/idr=0A --Next_1091266075---0-203.199.83.248-24444-- --===============2138205316== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --===============2138205316==-- Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA13364 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BqqAP-0003vy-WC; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:28:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bqq9t-0003fI-Ty for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:28:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16906 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:28:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [203.199.83.248] (helo=rediffmail.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BqqCI-0005z0-Ug for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:30:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 24457 invoked by uid 510); 31 Jul 2004 09:27:55 -0000 Date: 31 Jul 2004 09:27:55 -0000 Message-ID: <20040731092755.24455.qmail@webmail36.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (203.197.138.199) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 31 jul 2004 09:27:55 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "ephim era" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++) X-Scan-Signature: b2809b6f39decc6de467dcf252f42af1 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ephim era List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2138205316==" Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart mime message --===============2138205316== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Next_1091266075---0-203.199.83.248-24444" This is a multipart mime message --Next_1091266075---0-203.199.83.248-24444 Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A
=0AFolks,
=0A
=0ASorry, I wasn't in town. I was working on = some routing table implementation and redistribution of routes .... (RFC 17= 45 BGP -- OSPF interactions) it's been made historical... but do vendors pr= ovide that feature ? it's available on cisco tho' say when I redist static = into BGP(AS A) redist BGP to IGP ( in transit AS B) and back from IGP to BG= P in at border of transit --> BGP(AS C) I saw the origin being lost from= incomplete to IGP!!! (safely assume IGP as OSPFv2)
=0A
=0AHow valid = is this RFC 1745... I understand that BGP route reflectors are designed to = avoid BGP-IGP redistibution in transit AS. But RR mechanism is pretty new. = Should any new implementatino of BGP & OSPF support (least partally) RF= C 1745 ?
=0A
=0AThanks in advance,
=0A-Ephim
=0A
=0A
=0A = Sun, 11 Jul 2004 Tony Li wrote :
=0A>I'll try to answer both:
=0A&= gt;
=0A>1) A change in BGP next hops should never lead to a change in= IGP routes unless someone is doing redistribution.  It _can_ of cours= e,
=0A>change how traffic flows internal to the domain.
=0A>=0A>2) Hot potato routing is also known as "nearest exit".&nb= sp; The basic philosophy is that a transit provider wants to hand off the t= raffic
=0A>with the fewest number of fiber miles/router hops/overall = expense.  Multiple protocols are not required.
=0A>
=0A>To= ny
=0A>
=0A>
=0A>On Jul 10, 2004, at 3:23 AM, john smith = wrote:
=0A>
=0A>>
=0A>>I am amazed no one has answe= red to this post.
=0A>>
=0A>>I have never seen the change= s in BGP causing changes in IGP, as we rarely ever have cases where people = do BGP-->IGP. It would bring down your network though :)
=0A>><= BR>=0A>>I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato come i= nto play only in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. Thoug= h, if I look up the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like Dat= a Networks by Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not seem to b= e what is referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers and d= iscussions that I see. The case and examples in the books never talk about = multiple protocols to put forth the point of Hot Potato routing.
=0A>= >
=0A>>Perhaps someone could help clarify the definations in th= e 1st place,
=0A>>
=0A>>-brgds
=0A>>JS
=0A>= ;>
=0A>>
=0A>>> From: "ephim  era" &= lt;ephemera6380@rediffmail.com>
=0A>>>Reply-To: ephim  = era <ephemera6380@rediffmail.com>
=0A>>>To: idr@ietf.org<= BR>=0A>>>Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes
=0A>>>Dat= e: 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000
=0A>>>
=0A>>>
=0A&= gt;>>
=0A>>>
=0A>>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim&= nbsp; era wrote :
=0A>>> >Hi All,
=0A>>> >=0A>>> >Is there a scenario (protocol, deployment, configurati= on) wherein a change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP rou= tes (or vice-versa) ?
=0A>>> >
=0A>>>
=0A>= >>  case excluding redistribution of routes... ?
=0A>>&= gt;
=0A>>> >Thanks in advance,
=0A>>> >Ephim<= BR>=0A>>> >
=0A>>> >____________________________= ___________________
=0A>>> >Idr mailing list
=0A>>&= gt; >Idr@ietf.org
=0A>>> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/l= istinfo/idr
=0A>>>
=0A>>>__________________________= _____________________
=0A>>>Idr mailing list
=0A>>>= Idr@ietf.org
=0A>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr=0A>>
=0A>>_______________________________________________= __________________
=0A>>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service= : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/virus
=0A>><= BR>=0A>>
=0A>>______________________________________________= _
=0A>>Idr mailing list
=0A>>Idr@ietf.org
=0A>>h= ttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
=0A>>
=0A>
=0A&= gt;
=0A>_______________________________________________
=0A>Idr= mailing list
=0A>Idr@ietf.org
=0A>https://www1.ietf.org/mailma= n/listinfo/idr
=0A=0A

=0A

=0A=0A --Next_1091266075---0-203.199.83.248-24444 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0AFolks,=0A=0ASorry, I wasn't in town. I was working on some routing table= implementation and redistribution of routes .... (RFC 1745 BGP -- OSPF int= eractions) it's been made historical... but do vendors provide that feature= ? it's available on cisco tho' say when I redist static into BGP(AS A) red= ist BGP to IGP ( in transit AS B) and back from IGP to BGP in at border of = transit --> BGP(AS C) I saw the origin being lost from incomplete to IGP!!!= (safely assume IGP as OSPFv2)=0A=0AHow valid is this RFC 1745... I underst= and that BGP route reflectors are designed to avoid BGP-IGP redistibution i= n transit AS. But RR mechanism is pretty new. Should any new implementatino= of BGP & OSPF support (least partally) RFC 1745 ?=0A=0AThanks in advance,= =0A-Ephim=0A=0A=0A Sun, 11 Jul 2004 Tony Li wrote :=0A>I'll try to answer b= oth:=0A>=0A>1) A change in BGP next hops should never lead to a change in I= GP routes unless someone is doing redistribution. It _can_ of course,=0A>c= hange how traffic flows internal to the domain.=0A>=0A>2) Hot potato routin= g is also known as "nearest exit". The basic philosophy is that a transit = provider wants to hand off the traffic=0A>with the fewest number of fiber m= iles/router hops/overall expense. Multiple protocols are not required.=0A>= =0A>Tony=0A>=0A>=0A>On Jul 10, 2004, at 3:23 AM, john smith wrote:=0A>=0A>>= =0A>>I am amazed no one has answered to this post.=0A>>=0A>>I have never se= en the changes in BGP causing changes in IGP, as we rarely ever have cases = where people do BGP-->IGP. It would bring down your network though :)=0A>>= =0A>>I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato come into play = only in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. Though, if I l= ook up the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like Data Network= s by Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not seem to be what is= referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers and discussions that I s= ee. The case and examples in the books never talk about multiple protocols = to put forth the point of Hot Potato routing.=0A>>=0A>>Perhaps someone coul= d help clarify the definations in the 1st place,=0A>>=0A>>-brgds=0A>>JS=0A>= >=0A>>=0A>>> From: "ephim era" =0A>>>Reply-To= : ephim era =0A>>>To: idr@ietf.org=0A>>>Subje= ct: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes=0A>>>Date: 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000=0A>>>= =0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim era wrote :=0A>>> >Hi Al= l,=0A>>> >=0A>>> >Is there a scenario (protocol, deployment, configuration)= wherein a change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP routes= (or vice-versa) ?=0A>>> >=0A>>>=0A>>> case excluding redistribution of ro= utes... ?=0A>>>=0A>>> >Thanks in advance,=0A>>> >Ephim=0A>>> >=0A>>> >_____= __________________________________________=0A>>> >Idr mailing list=0A>>> >I= dr@ietf.org=0A>>> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr=0A>>>=0A>>>__= _____________________________________________=0A>>>Idr mailing list=0A>>>Id= r@ietf.org=0A>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr=0A>>=0A>>_______= __________________________________________________________=0A>>MSN 8 with e= -mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=3D= features/virus=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>______________________________________________= _=0A>>Idr mailing list=0A>>Idr@ietf.org=0A>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/l= istinfo/idr=0A>>=0A>=0A>=0A>_______________________________________________= =0A>Idr mailing list=0A>Idr@ietf.org=0A>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listi= nfo/idr=0A --Next_1091266075---0-203.199.83.248-24444-- --===============2138205316== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --===============2138205316==-- Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09005 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BpD6n-0007IB-7F; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:34:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BpD2i-0006AT-4U for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:29:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11316 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BpD4B-0008Vk-IF for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:31:27 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i6QLTOBm064476; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:29:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6QLTOe52061; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:29:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407262129.i6QLTOe52061@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <34617.1090877364.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:29:24 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Cc: skh@nexthop.com Subject: [Idr] presentations at the IDR WG meeting X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Folks, Those presenting at the IDR WG meeting please note that we MUST have your slides well in advance. So, please your slides to Sue and myself no late than Sunday (8/1) evening. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA08729 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:35:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BpD6h-0007HG-Oa; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:34:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BpCzk-0005d2-8E for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:26:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11164 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:26:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BpD1C-0008SS-Ks for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:28:23 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i6QLQJBm064455 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:26:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6QLQJe51339 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:26:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407262126.i6QLQJe51339@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <33495.1090877179.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:26:19 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Subject: [Idr] small correction to the agenda X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Folks, Attached are the agenda with few minor changes (the changes reflect the time allotted to each presentation). Yakov. ------------------------------------------------------------- Document Status Update (5 mins) S. Hares, Y. Rekhter Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 (10 mins) draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt Enke Chen, Srihari R. Sangli Advertisement of the Group Best Paths in BGP (20 mins) draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt E. Chen, N. Chen Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions (20 mins) draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt N. Dubois, B. Decraene, B. Fondeviole Carrying ATM reachability information in BGP (20 mins) draft-ck-bgp-atm-nlri-00.txt Chaitanya Kodeboyina, Chris Metz, Peter Busschbach Group Cooperative Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4 (10 mins) draft-muley-hares-idr-orf-order-00.txt Praveen Muley, Susan Hares, Keyur Patel Preserving BGP Next-Hops (10 mins) draft-raggarwa-bgp-nexthop-rewrite-00.txt Rahul Aggarwal, Chaitanya Kodeboyina MDT SAFI (15 mins) draft-nalawade-idr-mdt-safi-01.txt Gargi Nalawade, Arjun Sreekantiah _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA20969 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bp7ei-0004dn-MO; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:44:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bp7V3-000158-8L for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:34:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15649; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bp7WS-0006x2-Dr; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:36:17 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i6QFYF999774; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:34:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6QFYAe64187; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:34:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407261534.i6QFYAe64187@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org, agenda@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23095.1090856050.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:34:10 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Cc: skh@nexthop.com, yakov@juniper.net Subject: [Idr] IDR WG agenda X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Folks, Attached is the IDR WG agenda. Yakov. --------------------------------------------------------------- Document Status Update (5 mins) S. Hares, Y. Rekhter Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 (10 mins) draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt Enke Chen, Srihari R. Sangli Advertisement of the Group Best Paths in BGP (15 mins) draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt E. Chen, N. Chen Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions (15 mins) draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt N. Dubois, B. Decraene, B. Fondeviole Carrying ATM reachability information in BGP (15 mins) draft-ck-bgp-atm-nlri-00.txt Chaitanya Kodeboyina, Chris Metz, Peter Busschbach Group Cooperative Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4 (10 mins) draft-muley-hares-idr-orf-order-00.txt Praveen Muley, Susan Hares, Keyur Patel Preserving BGP Next-Hops (10 mins) draft-raggarwa-bgp-nexthop-rewrite-00.txt Rahul Aggarwal, Chaitanya Kodeboyina MDT SAFI (10 mins) draft-nalawade-idr-mdt-safi-01.txt Gargi Nalawade, Arjun Sreekantiah _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA20851 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoyeG-0000Lt-Bq; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:07:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoydX-00083c-D7 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:06:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA25344 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:06:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Boyer-0000HL-EZ for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:08:22 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004072606062601500imfrge> (Authid: hcb8); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:06:26 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040726000116.GA27886@nexthop.com> References: <20040726000116.GA27886@nexthop.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:06:22 -0400 To: idr@ietf.org From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org At 8:01 PM -0400 7/25/04, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:31:46PM -0400, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >> Now, I may have egg on my face because I missed a >> proposal, but I don't think I've seen a general proposal to put >> prefix-limit-exceeded into the BGP MIB. Yes, I recognize the actual >> (local) prefix limit functionality is implementation specific, but if >> it's worth doing remotely, it's worth doing locally. > >Speaking as MIB editor, IMO the MIB should reflect protocol elements. >If we put max prefix into some ORF, it will probably make it into >the extension MIB for that ORF. > >But, to provide a counter example, the l3vpn group decided to >put in "water marks" to represent the prefix limits. This was >outside of the protocol, but desired by the working group. Similarly, >if there is WG consensus on having this in the MIB, we can add >it regardless of whether we choose to do such a thing for an ORF >MIB that carries prefix limits. (Similar if we do a dynamic capability >extention MIB to accomodate the other major proposal.) > >However, if we choose to put in our own "water marks", we risk >conflict with the l3vpn implementation of the same since we carry >2547 type reachability over BGP too. First, maybe it's just the way that my mind works, but I've always conceptualized ORF capabilities as having a certain symmetry. You are moving an acceptance rule on your router to be an advertising rule on your peer. This model worked nicely for me, as long as the acceptance rules were on protocol elements. Prefix-limit, however, isn't a protocol element per se, but more of an observation of protocol behavior. Let me draw an analogy for "observation": flapping isn't a protocol element, but a measurement, potentially to be used in damping, is an observation. Is there a more accepted or elegant way to describe "observation" as a (using the term loosely) type in MIBs? Second, is it plausible to port the l3vpn "water marks" to general BGP as well as VPN MP-BGP information? _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA06477 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bosx5-00082W-3d; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:02:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoswG-0007uE-PD for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05006 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BosxW-0004ye-J3 for idr@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:03:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8732D497C; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 64579-01-8; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402962D4941; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i6Q01G428261; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:01:16 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Message-ID: <20040726000116.GA27886@nexthop.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:31:46PM -0400, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > Now, I may have egg on my face because I missed a > proposal, but I don't think I've seen a general proposal to put > prefix-limit-exceeded into the BGP MIB. Yes, I recognize the actual > (local) prefix limit functionality is implementation specific, but if > it's worth doing remotely, it's worth doing locally. Speaking as MIB editor, IMO the MIB should reflect protocol elements. If we put max prefix into some ORF, it will probably make it into the extension MIB for that ORF. But, to provide a counter example, the l3vpn group decided to put in "water marks" to represent the prefix limits. This was outside of the protocol, but desired by the working group. Similarly, if there is WG consensus on having this in the MIB, we can add it regardless of whether we choose to do such a thing for an ORF MIB that carries prefix limits. (Similar if we do a dynamic capability extention MIB to accomodate the other major proposal.) However, if we choose to put in our own "water marks", we risk conflict with the l3vpn implementation of the same since we carry 2547 type reachability over BGP too. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA08528 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo8ds-0001QR-9A; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:35:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo8aW-0000Wk-V7 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:32:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02140 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo8bL-0007fT-UQ for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:33:18 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004072322315001400eui3oe> (Authid: hcb8); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:31:51 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:31:46 -0400 To: idr@ietf.org From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org At 8:53 PM +0000 7/23/04, john smith wrote: >>>Let us assume for a minute that these are not "experimental". >>> >>> >>>Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this? >> >> >>I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point. Are you referring to >>the lack of framework for what to implement as ORF, or something >>else? > >... all I am saying is that given a "vendor neutral" framework, as >to why things (may)"or"(may not be better using ORFs), will people >who believe ORF helps, stand up and say why and why not it should be >used, and under what circumstances, instead of "colouring" their >bits and bytes as they wish to? > >It is exactly what you said in your previous email, I just added to >it and hoped to clarify it. > >If 2 people wish to do the same thing, it makes more sense for them >to argue why not A instead of B rather than just giving their own >proposals. > >..I always believed WGs was the place where people can argue and >talk openly, so that the younger generation can look at it and learn >from the archives, but perhaps I am mistaken.... Thank you for the excellent clarification. Yes, this is one of my concern. Many, if not most, new technologies originate with vendors. It does become a question if variations on a theme sometimes can consolidate. Indeed, some of the ORF work could meaningfully flow back into single-router BGP. Now, I may have egg on my face because I missed a proposal, but I don't think I've seen a general proposal to put prefix-limit-exceeded into the BGP MIB. Yes, I recognize the actual (local) prefix limit functionality is implementation specific, but if it's worth doing remotely, it's worth doing locally. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA03021 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:03:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo78G-0005tO-GJ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:59:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo73U-0004Z9-Kf for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:54:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26841 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:54:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bay17-f6.bay17.hotmail.com ([64.4.43.56] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo74J-0006bO-UH for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:55:04 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:53:40 -0700 Received: from 219.65.136.121 by by17fd.bay17.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:53:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [219.65.136.121] X-Originating-Email: [johnsmith0302@hotmail.com] X-Sender: johnsmith0302@hotmail.com From: "john smith" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:53:39 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2004 20:53:40.0220 (UTC) FILETIME=[21F5B3C0:01C470F7] X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org >> >>Let us assume for a minute that these are not "experimental". >> >> >>Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this? > > >I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point. Are you referring to the lack >of framework for what to implement as ORF, or something else? ... all I am saying is that given a "vendor neutral" framework, as to why things (may)"or"(may not be better using ORFs), will people who believe ORF helps, stand up and say why and why not it should be used, and under what circumstances, instead of "colouring" their bits and bytes as they wish to? It is exactly what you said in your previous email, I just added to it and hoped to clarify it. If 2 people wish to do the same thing, it makes more sense for them to argue why not A instead of B rather than just giving their own proposals. ..I always believed WGs was the place where people can argue and talk openly, so that the younger generation can look at it and learn from the archives, but perhaps I am mistaken.... -thanks _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA01884 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo6jE-00087j-Mn; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:33:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo6fm-0007Mq-Pc for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:29:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25610 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo6gZ-0006Gp-NT for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:30:34 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004072320290701400es08ve> (Authid: hcb8); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:29:08 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:29:04 -0400 To: idr@ietf.org From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org At 8:17 PM +0000 7/23/04, john smith wrote: >Howard, > >Let us assume for a minute that these are not "experimental". > > >Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this? I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point. Are you referring to the lack of framework for what to implement as ORF, or something else? > > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA00968 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo6WG-00051b-9y; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:19:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo6Uh-0004mr-5t for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:18:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24836 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:18:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bay17-f27.bay17.hotmail.com ([64.4.43.77] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo6VT-00066d-Aq for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:19:07 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:17:39 -0700 Received: from 219.65.136.121 by by17fd.bay17.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:17:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [219.65.136.121] X-Originating-Email: [johnsmith0302@hotmail.com] X-Sender: johnsmith0302@hotmail.com From: "john smith" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:17:39 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2004 20:17:39.0825 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A439610:01C470F2] X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Howard, Let us assume for a minute that these are not "experimental". Will the WG be "plain and honest" enough to contribute to this? -thanks >From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" >To: idr >Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:19:05 -0400 > >At 12:47 PM -0700 7/22/04, Robert Raszuk wrote: >>I must admit that I fully agree with Enke. >> >>It seems just impossible to combine all "ORF drafts" whatever this term >>means simply due to the fact that ORF-type has been designed as an >>extensible indicator to the purpose of given ORF message. >> >>The best analogy would be to request that all BGP attributes should be >>combined into one draft/rfc when you really can't tell what attribute may >>be needed tomorrow. >> >>Besides even today there seems to be already too many proposals for ORF >>message use to fit into one readable doc (not to mention author list :). >>To list them here: prefix ORF, prefix limit ORF, AS-PATH ORF, ext >>community ORF etc ... > >If these were all meant to be Experimental, that would be one thing. The >idea that so many types are evolving that they cannot go into one readable >document cries for an application of Occam's Razor. > >It's not that any of these are radically new BGP capabilities. Most exist >in standards, and most are implemented in non-ORF BGP. Now, I always tell >of the time that I was giving a seminar at NASA, took a break, and listened >to the instructor in the next room, who was discussing the Shuttle >propulsion system. I could have sworn I heard him say "Hey, come on. This >is rocket science, not BGP." > >Is it rocket science to stop and ask "what are the operational benefits of >each of these additional types", and record some of that discussion? >Alternatively, the question could be posed "of all functions that are used, >either vendor-specific or standards-based, in eBGP route selection, which >should NOT be available in an ORF method, and why or why not?" > >_______________________________________________ >Idr mailing list >Idr@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA12963 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo11w-0004u1-Ur; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:28:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo10l-00048b-4m for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27305 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo11W-0007ac-PH for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:27:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5022D484A; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 26754-03-24; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFA92D482A; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i6NEQNf23473; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:23 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Message-ID: <20040723142623.GB20535@nexthop.com> References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Cc: idr X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:23:02PM -0600, Danny McPherson wrote: > I agree. I only suggest doing so for proposals to date that the > WG believes make sense. E.g., I'm not sure about value of max- > prefix ORF Type, so I do understand your concern. However, > I see no reason prefix & attribute-based ORF Types should be in > a slew of independent drafts from the start. One of the problems of combining the specifications (which I don't think we should do) is that it ties them all together in the standards process. As it stands, in order to implement the base specification, it's somewhat implied that you're going to implement the community and extended community ORFs. Thankfully this isn't outright required in the base document (if you didn't care to implement them), but this isn't clear enough that our respective organizations wont have a little jousting to do with comformance test vendors that so often make our lives... interesting. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA12213 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo0iB-0002gO-F0; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:07:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bo0eE-00008J-7B for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24365 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bo0ex-00079O-Ft for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:04:30 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414852D4B01; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 25176-02-30; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236FA2D4B00; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i6NE35h22429; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:03:05 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Chandrashekhar Appanna Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Message-ID: <20040723140304.GA20535@nexthop.com> References: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> <20040723023258.GA715@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040723023258.GA715@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: Yakov Rekhter , idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:32:58PM -0700, Chandrashekhar Appanna wrote: > Yes, I think this should become a WG doc. I also think it should become a WG document (but still need to do a quick read-through of the current draft). > On the topic of merging the various ORF type docs, if there > was a clear consensus or need, I am sure the original authors > would have added them all in the base spec. To nitpick a little bit, ORFs, like extended communities, seem to strongly have come out of certain vendor's needs for certain technology to solve a specific problem. The fact that they were adaptable to a more generic tool speaks well of the authors of the specifications. However, I think that a more generic solution would have done us well in each case. ORFs are extremely coarse policy. Extended communities have already been criticized for not being flexibile enough. Yet each solves the problems for their original problem space well enough. Rough consensus and all that. :-) > Since they did not > and we are seeing the individual submissions, I would leave it > that way so that only the ones required will survive.... I'd generally agree. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA19184 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:28:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnsah-0007OP-KC; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:27:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnsUN-0003wq-9R for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:20:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA02067 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnsV3-0006Hg-Pk for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:21:43 -0400 Received: from [202.178.110.227] (unknown [202.178.110.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4A164371 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:21:08 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: <200407230511.i6N5BD815610@fall.redback.com> References: <200407230511.i6N5BD815610@fall.redback.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <0EBDB3CE-DC68-11D8-B680-000393D54EA6@tcb.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:20:48 -0600 To: idr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 22, 2004, at 11:11 PM, Enke Chen wrote: > > You must refer to a very early version Ahh, yes, my mistake. I'd forgot about draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-* danny _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA18681 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnsQV-0001dS-8B; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:16:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnsL6-0008Aw-Sk for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:11:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01596 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnsLl-0006BY-Hh for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:12:08 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AEA3018AA; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16208-09; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fall.redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.44.81]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1C23018A6; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redback.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fall.redback.com (8.11.0/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) with ESMTP id i6N5BD815610; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200407230511.i6N5BD815610@fall.redback.com> To: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document In-Reply-To: Message from Danny McPherson of "Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:23:02 MDT." Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:11:13 -0700 From: Enke Chen X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Cc: enke@redback.com, idr X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org > Message-Id: > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Danny McPherson > Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document > Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:23:02 -0600 > To: idr > [snip] > > > Regarding Howard's comment on "harmonized", it seems to me that the > > ORF types are already "harmonized" as the base ORF spec has already > > specified procedures for dealing with multiple ORF types. > > The base specification includes prefix ORF, why not other ORF Types that > the WG believes should be included? Or should we take prefix out > as well and have a truly base specification so as to not prolong > progress in the WG (I'm kidding). You must refer to a very early version (from years ago) which defined a prefix ORF that had no similarity with the current prefix ORF, and was removed years ago. The current ORF base spec includes only two very simple ORF types (community ORF and ext-community ORF). Regards, -- Enke _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA12282 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnpvM-0000oT-Kc; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:36:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnpsN-0006mm-O9 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:33:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21774 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnpt1-00047Q-Ux for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:34:18 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2004 19:35:05 -0700 Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.143]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6N2Wx8a001944; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from achandra@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id TAA03101; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:32:58 -0700 From: Chandrashekhar Appanna To: Yakov Rekhter Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Message-ID: <20040723023258.GA715@cisco.com> References: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Yes, I think this should become a WG doc. On the topic of merging the various ORF type docs, if there was a clear consensus or need, I am sure the original authors would have added them all in the base spec. Since they did not and we are seeing the individual submissions, I would leave it that way so that only the ones required will survive.... - Chandra Appanna. On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:42:23AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > Folks, > > We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt > as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). > > It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and > comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need > "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. > > I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But > if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in > two weeks), we could extend the deadline. > > Yakov. > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA09338 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:33:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnort-0000yw-46; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnomW-0005yv-ID for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:23:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06854 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:23:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnomz-0003K2-Im for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:24:10 -0400 Received: from [202.178.110.227] (unknown [202.178.110.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8169F6436B for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:23:22 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:23:02 -0600 To: idr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 22, 2004, at 12:41 PM, Enke Chen wrote: > If it means "combine" the documents, I do not see benefits but > drawbacks. > > - Except for the common properties described in the base ORF spec, > each ORF type has type-specific properties (e.g., encoding and > matching). Of course. > - The implementation of one ORF type is independent of the > implementation of another. It is possible that some vendor might > choose to implement one, and not another (based on customer > requirements). Of course. > - Having separate drafts would allow us to progress each ORF type > independently (when one is implemented and ready, similary to > the BGP capability). > > - It might not be practicle to exhaustively combine the ORF types > as more types are being proposed (e.g., max prefix ORF). I agree. I only suggest doing so for proposals to date that the WG believes make sense. E.g., I'm not sure about value of max- prefix ORF Type, so I do understand your concern. However, I see no reason prefix & attribute-based ORF Types should be in a slew of independent drafts from the start. > - Authors of each ORF type should be held accountable for that > type, not more and not less :-) Blah.. It's going to be a WG document.. This, i.e., Authors, is the heart of the issue. > Regarding Howard's comment on "harmonized", it seems to me that the > ORF types are already "harmonized" as the base ORF spec has already > specified procedures for dealing with multiple ORF types. The base specification includes prefix ORF, why not other ORF Types that the WG believes should be included? Or should we take prefix out as well and have a truly base specification so as to not prolong progress in the WG (I'm kidding). It just seems the many ORF Type drafts should be coupled into a single specification while we still have the opportunity, if the WG believes they have merit. Else there'll be even more documents folks will need to go trudging through to find the bits their interested in. Of course, I really don't feel strongly enough about this to continue supporting my position (i.e., I'm busy :-), but it just seems a bit silly to me. I would like to see this work progress in the WG, regardless. And it is in the charter, so.. -danny _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA05820 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnnSc-0007LX-4f; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:58:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnnAU-0005pz-Od for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:40:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00429 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnnB8-0001zC-DE for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:40:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1A12D4919 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 81397-01-24 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com (aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com [65.247.36.233]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45F62D492E for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:39:26 -0400 (EDT) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:39:26 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Thread-Index: AcRwQfvF1b50/ZgoQAOno/SxhPGrwwAAwFmg From: "Susan Hares" To: "John G. Scudder" , "Enke Chen" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Cc: idr X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id UAA05820 John and Enke: I want to change my mind on the merging after further discussions. I would not like to merge the drafts. Sue -----Original Message----- From: John G. Scudder [mailto:jgs@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:35 PM To: Enke Chen Cc: idr Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Seems reasonable to make draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt a WG document. I also agree with Enke's recent comments regarding why not to merge the various ORF-type documents. The only benefit that it appears would be realized is that you'd have a one-stop shop for all the ORF types (that existed as of the publication of the merged doc). That doesn't seem compelling. --John _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA05432 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnn6i-0002GL-T7; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:36:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnmqn-0000Bk-Ms for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:19:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28077 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnmrP-0001Ne-5r for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:20:26 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004072223191101100dtgi0e> (Authid: hcb8); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:19:11 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <410019E7.8050006@cisco.com> References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> <410019E7.8050006@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:19:05 -0400 To: idr From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org At 12:47 PM -0700 7/22/04, Robert Raszuk wrote: >I must admit that I fully agree with Enke. > >It seems just impossible to combine all "ORF drafts" whatever this >term means simply due to the fact that ORF-type has been designed as >an extensible indicator to the purpose of given ORF message. > >The best analogy would be to request that all BGP attributes should >be combined into one draft/rfc when you really can't tell what >attribute may be needed tomorrow. > >Besides even today there seems to be already too many proposals for >ORF message use to fit into one readable doc (not to mention author >list :). To list them here: prefix ORF, prefix limit ORF, AS-PATH >ORF, ext community ORF etc ... If these were all meant to be Experimental, that would be one thing. The idea that so many types are evolving that they cannot go into one readable document cries for an application of Occam's Razor. It's not that any of these are radically new BGP capabilities. Most exist in standards, and most are implemented in non-ORF BGP. Now, I always tell of the time that I was giving a seminar at NASA, took a break, and listened to the instructor in the next room, who was discussing the Shuttle propulsion system. I could have sworn I heard him say "Hey, come on. This is rocket science, not BGP." Is it rocket science to stop and ask "what are the operational benefits of each of these additional types", and record some of that discussion? Alternatively, the question could be posed "of all functions that are used, either vendor-specific or standards-based, in eBGP route selection, which should NOT be available in an ORF method, and why or why not?" _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA05093 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnn4u-0000Qt-Tn; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:34:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnmkR-0003Iv-Ca for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:13:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27421 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:13:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnml4-0001DE-DL for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:13:51 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20040722231237014003fpp0e> (Authid: hcb8); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:12:37 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:12:34 -0400 To: idr From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org At 11:41 AM -0700 7/22/04, Enke Chen wrote: >Hi, Danny: > >> From: Danny McPherson >> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document >> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:14 -0600 >> To: idr >> >> I also support the draft and would like to see it >> become a WG document. > >Thanks for voice your opinion. > >> I agree with Howard (and think I mentioned it here over a year ago) >> that we should try to converge the different ORF drafts before >> we progress them within the WG. > >It is not clear to me what you meant by "converge", and what issue we >try to address. > >If it means "combine" the documents, I do not see benefits but drawbacks. I meant combine. While I recognize there can be good reasons to have vendor flexibility, especially in the case of BGP, the overall Internet benefits from interoperability. My perspective is not always from that of a vendor. Indeed, it unfortunately has to include certain of the less clueful of users. To clarify, I would want to see at least the equivalent of an overall applicability document or other overview that discusses the tradeoffs of the various types. I don't have a problem with separate detailed implementation specifications, but the proliferation of options, in my experience, is causing confusion among at least some users. > > - Except for the common properties described in the base ORF spec, > each ORF type has type-specific properties (e.g., encoding and > matching). That is relevant to implementers. A reasonable customer perspective is to have the various alternatives available in one place so the most appropriate one can be chosen. > > - The implementation of one ORF type is independent of the > implementation of another. It is possible that some vendor might > choose to implement one, and not another (based on customer > requirements). Anything is possible. I would not regard this as a good thing, in the interest of interoperability. In this specific case, I could see a vendor perhaps not implementing all at once due to resources, but I really find it hard to imagine a customer, who has accepted the basic logic of ORF, wanting to be limited to one or another type. We are not talking here of exotic types. Every type involved is in routine use in BGP configurations where ORF is not used. > > - Having separate drafts would allow us to progress each ORF type > independently (when one is implemented and ready, similary to > the BGP capability). Once operators, and especially end enterprises, start using ORF to a significant degree, I need to be convinced that it is a good thing if a series of functionally related capabilities shows up in random order. > > - It might not be practicle to exhaustively combine the ORF types > as more types are being proposed (e.g., max prefix ORF). Then there can be versions. There could be an applicability document. > > - Authors of each ORF type should be held accountable for that > type, not more and not less :-) > >Regarding Howard's comment on "harmonized", it seems to me that the >ORF types are already "harmonized" as the base ORF spec has already >specified procedures for dealing with multiple ORF types. > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA03845 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnmTb-000281-9w; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 18:55:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnkHs-0008Iq-JA for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:35:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28546 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnkIU-0001ug-IM for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:36:11 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2004 16:40:15 -0400 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Received: from cisco.com (router.cisco.com [64.101.214.30]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6MKYwGX010685; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:34:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.101.214.202] (dhcp-64-101-215-162.cisco.com [64.101.215.162]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA25982; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jgs@router Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:34:54 -0400 To: Enke Chen From: "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Cc: idr X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Seems reasonable to make draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt a WG document. I also agree with Enke's recent comments regarding why not to merge the various ORF-type documents. The only benefit that it appears would be realized is that you'd have a one-stop shop for all the ORF types (that existed as of the publication of the merged doc). That doesn't seem compelling. --John _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA01673 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 18:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnjp4-0001i2-4b; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:05:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnjYJ-00029r-71 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:48:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20963 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnjYv-0007xa-4P for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:49:05 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2004 12:51:17 +0000 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6MJlq8a016905; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cisco.com ([64.101.25.142]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id AVO44775; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <410019E7.8050006@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:47:51 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: idr Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document References: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> In-Reply-To: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Enke Chen , Danny McPherson X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org I must admit that I fully agree with Enke. It seems just impossible to combine all "ORF drafts" whatever this term means simply due to the fact that ORF-type has been designed as an extensible indicator to the purpose of given ORF message. The best analogy would be to request that all BGP attributes should be combined into one draft/rfc when you really can't tell what attribute may be needed tomorrow. Besides even today there seems to be already too many proposals for ORF message use to fit into one readable doc (not to mention author list :). To list them here: prefix ORF, prefix limit ORF, AS-PATH ORF, ext community ORF etc ... So my vote is to keep the base spec with historically first ORF application as is and incrementally and separately be able to add new functionality with new ORF-types. Cheers, R. > Enke Chen wrote: > > Hi, Danny: > > >>From: Danny McPherson >>Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:14 -0600 >>To: idr >> >>I also support the draft and would like to see it >>become a WG document. > > > Thanks for voice your opinion. > > >>I agree with Howard (and think I mentioned it here over a year ago) >>that we should try to converge the different ORF drafts before >>we progress them within the WG. > > > It is not clear to me what you meant by "converge", and what issue we > try to address. > > If it means "combine" the documents, I do not see benefits but drawbacks. > > - Except for the common properties described in the base ORF spec, > each ORF type has type-specific properties (e.g., encoding and > matching). > > - The implementation of one ORF type is independent of the > implementation of another. It is possible that some vendor might > choose to implement one, and not another (based on customer > requirements). > > - Having separate drafts would allow us to progress each ORF type > independently (when one is implemented and ready, similary to > the BGP capability). > > - It might not be practicle to exhaustively combine the ORF types > as more types are being proposed (e.g., max prefix ORF). > > - Authors of each ORF type should be held accountable for that > type, not more and not less :-) > > Regarding Howard's comment on "harmonized", it seems to me that the > ORF types are already "harmonized" as the base ORF spec has already > specified procedures for dealing with multiple ORF types. > > -- Enke > > >>-danny >> >>On Jul 19, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >> >> >>>Could I get a procedural clarification? I've always assumed that >>>sooner or later, the different ORF proposals (prefix, AS path, >>>community) would be harmonized. Do they each have to get to IDR I-D >>>before this can happen? >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Idr mailing list >>>Idr@ietf.org >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Idr mailing list >>Idr@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA23988 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnihh-0007IU-CD; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:54:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BniVd-0002aL-Rs for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:41:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13978 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BniWE-0006qZ-MG for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:42:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290048858D8; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25676-04; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fall.redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.44.81]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C338858CF; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redback.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fall.redback.com (8.11.0/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) with ESMTP id i6MIfW812801; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200407221841.i6MIfW812801@fall.redback.com> To: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document In-Reply-To: Message from Danny McPherson of "Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:14 MDT." Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:32 -0700 From: Enke Chen X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 Cc: enke@redback.com, idr X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Danny: > From: Danny McPherson > Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document > Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:14 -0600 > To: idr > > I also support the draft and would like to see it > become a WG document. Thanks for voice your opinion. > I agree with Howard (and think I mentioned it here over a year ago) > that we should try to converge the different ORF drafts before > we progress them within the WG. It is not clear to me what you meant by "converge", and what issue we try to address. If it means "combine" the documents, I do not see benefits but drawbacks. - Except for the common properties described in the base ORF spec, each ORF type has type-specific properties (e.g., encoding and matching). - The implementation of one ORF type is independent of the implementation of another. It is possible that some vendor might choose to implement one, and not another (based on customer requirements). - Having separate drafts would allow us to progress each ORF type independently (when one is implemented and ready, similary to the BGP capability). - It might not be practicle to exhaustively combine the ORF types as more types are being proposed (e.g., max prefix ORF). - Authors of each ORF type should be held accountable for that type, not more and not less :-) Regarding Howard's comment on "harmonized", it seems to me that the ORF types are already "harmonized" as the base ORF spec has already specified procedures for dealing with multiple ORF types. -- Enke > > -danny > > On Jul 19, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > Could I get a procedural clarification? I've always assumed that > > sooner or later, the different ORF proposals (prefix, AS path, > > community) would be harmonized. Do they each have to get to IDR I-D > > before this can happen? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Idr mailing list > > Idr@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA21677 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:05:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnho9-0004z0-Q0; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:56:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnhlc-0003bN-42 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:54:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09748 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnhmB-0005w6-JS for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:54:41 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C06D2D4A5E for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 60670-01-59 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com (aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com [65.247.36.233]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044C22D483B for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:53:13 -0400 (EDT) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:53:12 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Thread-Index: AcRvrcp8f8g/Y8F9Sre+jwdbmKS+mwAZt2ZA From: "Susan Hares" To: "Danny McPherson" , "idr" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Cc: X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id OAA21677 Danny: As a co-author of ORF drafts, I would welcome the convergence of the different drafts. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Danny McPherson [mailto:danny@tcb.net] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:26 AM To: idr Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document I also support the draft and would like to see it become a WG document. I agree with Howard (and think I mentioned it here over a year ago) that we should try to converge the different ORF drafts before we progress them within the WG. -danny On Jul 19, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > Could I get a procedural clarification? I've always assumed that > sooner or later, the different ORF proposals (prefix, AS path, > community) would be harmonized. Do they each have to get to IDR I-D > before this can happen? > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA22066 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnYl4-0002QA-Nl; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:16:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnYgD-0000hm-Fi for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:11:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28675 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:11:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp2.dataconnection.com ([192.91.191.8] helo=smtp2.datcon.co.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnYgi-0005KC-MV for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:12:26 -0400 Received: by beiderbecke.datcon.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:11:22 +0100 Message-ID: <53F74F5A7B94D511841C00B0D0AB16F802B13B03@baker.datcon.co.uk> From: Michael Dell To: "'Yakov Rekhter'" , idr@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:11:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Cc: X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Draft looks good. I would agree with those who have suggested that generating a single ORF draft from the various submissions would be beneficial, and help ensure a consistent approach. > Mike Dell > Networking Protocols Group > Data Connection Ltd > Tel: +44 20 8366 1177 > Fax: +44 20 8367 8501 E-mail: mike.dell@dataconnection.com Web: http://www.dataconnection.com -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov Rekhter Sent: 19 July 2004 16:42 To: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Folks, We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in two weeks), we could extend the deadline. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA12854 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:33:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnWC1-000625-NR; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:32:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BnW6V-0003Q3-97 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:26:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06402 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:26:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BnW6n-0003Wj-OH for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:27:22 -0400 Received: from [202.178.110.227] (unknown [202.178.110.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE8E64364 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:36 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: References: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:26:14 -0600 To: idr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org I also support the draft and would like to see it become a WG document. I agree with Howard (and think I mentioned it here over a year ago) that we should try to converge the different ORF drafts before we progress them within the WG. -danny On Jul 19, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > Could I get a procedural clarification? I've always assumed that > sooner or later, the different ORF proposals (prefix, AS path, > community) would be harmonized. Do they each have to get to IDR I-D > before this can happen? > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA15948 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bn2Id-0003cY-HO; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:37:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bn1GD-0004rB-5G for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28016 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com ([169.144.68.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bn1GO-0007oY-1U for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:31:02 -0400 Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6KKU7vL016888; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18780; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <38MX2NBG>; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:06 -0400 Message-ID: <5551AD75D2C0BC459A85A2CEFAE4F800011C1E@usvissfp01.win.marconi.com> From: "Kumar, Srivatsa" To: "'raszuk@cisco.com'" , Yakov Rekhter Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:30:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Cc: idr@ietf.org, "Litke, Douglas" X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Looks good to be accepted as an IDR WG Document. Vatsa -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:38 PM To: Yakov Rekhter Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Yes, looks good. R. > Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > Folks, > > We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt > as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). > > It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and > comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need > "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. > > I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But > if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in > two weeks), we could extend the deadline. > > Yakov. > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA26384 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:20:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bn0dk-0008LO-12; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:51:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bn0Rv-0006SC-Tu for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:38:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20220 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:38:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bn0S6-0005pZ-84 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:39:04 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2004 12:39:54 -0700 Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6KJcF8a011953; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-163-52.cisco.com [128.107.163.52]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id AVM45243; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <40FD74A7.2090303@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:38:15 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Rekhter Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document References: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Yes, looks good. R. > Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > Folks, > > We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt > as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). > > It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and > comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need > "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. > > I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But > if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in > two weeks), we could extend the deadline. > > Yakov. > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA21031 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:50:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmhNa-0002sT-TW; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:17:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmf1G-0002u1-AC for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:45:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01425 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BmeyQ-0002P7-Ha for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:43:00 -0400 Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BmdqK-0001ju-Qj for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:30:33 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247F75D4530; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07805-02; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fall.redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.44.81]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47745D4534; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redback.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fall.redback.com (8.11.0/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) with ESMTP id i6JJ0E810565; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200407191900.i6JJ0E810565@fall.redback.com> To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document In-Reply-To: Message from Yakov Rekhter of "Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:42:23 PDT." <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:00:14 -0700 From: Enke Chen X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Cc: enke@redback.com X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Hi, folks: Yes, I think that we should adopt the draft as an IDR document. 1) The Prefix ORF is already in the IDR Charter: May 04 Submit Outbound Route Filter, Prefix and ASpath ORF draft to IESG as a Proposed Standard In order to reach the milestone, it would be necessary to make the draft an IDR document. 2) The spec is mature and has been implmented and deployed for several years. Thanks. -- Enke > Message-Id: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> > To: idr@ietf.org > Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:42:23 -0700 > From: Yakov Rekhter > Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document > > Folks, > > We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt > as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). > > It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and > comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need > "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. > > I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But > if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in > two weeks), we could extend the deadline. > > Yakov. > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05748 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmcwW-0006jg-6n; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:32:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmcqA-0005fS-Da for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:26:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13623 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:26:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmcq9-0001D9-92 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:26:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bmcp8-0000vn-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:25:14 -0400 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bmco6-0000Oq-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:24:10 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667D92D484D for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31246-01-3 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com (aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com [65.247.36.233]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC222D481E for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:38 -0400 (EDT) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:38 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Thread-Index: AcRtqfhyixDCp0jQSaOKqaJ+YO5cuwAE0hJg From: "Susan Hares" To: "Yakov Rekhter" , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Cc: X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id OAA05748 yes -- looks good. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 11:42 AM To: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Folks, We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in two weeks), we could extend the deadline. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05710 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmcw9-0006bc-4l; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:32:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmcnK-0005Gm-35 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13415 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmcnI-0000NC-VL for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:23:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BmcmQ-00005T-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:22:27 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BmclV-0007Ll-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:21:29 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp09296126pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net[69.143.165.226]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20040719182058015003if4ie> (Authid: hcb8); Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:20:58 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb8@smtp.comcast.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> References: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:20:54 -0400 To: idr@ietf.org From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org At 8:42 AM -0700 7/19/04, Yakov Rekhter wrote: >Folks, > >We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt >as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). > >It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and >comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need >"yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. > >I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But >if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in >two weeks), we could extend the deadline. > Could I get a procedural clarification? I've always assumed that sooner or later, the different ORF proposals (prefix, AS path, community) would be harmonized. Do they each have to get to IDR I-D before this can happen? _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA00969 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmaSK-0005Sg-8n; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:53:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmaKA-00048O-Uz for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:45:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28994 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmaKA-0000u4-3j for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:45:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BmaJ5-0000Nr-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:43:59 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BmaI6-0007hS-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:42:58 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i6JFgS932019 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:42:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6JFgNe12536 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:42:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407191542.i6JFgNe12536@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <26467.1090251743.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:42:23 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Folks, We received a request to accept draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt as an IDR WG document (see e-mail to the list on Jul 14, 2004). It would be greatly appreciated if folks would read the document and comment on it to the IDR mailing list. In other words, we need "yes, looks good" or "should fix this and that", not just silence. I would suggest to have August 2 as the deadline for comments. But if folks feel that it is not enough time (as we have the IETF in two weeks), we could extend the deadline. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00699 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:54:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmaMY-0004N1-Gd; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:47:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bma9Y-0001kE-LQ for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:34:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27938 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bma9X-0005PD-JK for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:34:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bma8e-0005AA-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:33:12 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bma7l-0004fm-00; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:32:17 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i6JFVlBm003814; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:31:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6JFVke11270; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:31:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407191531.i6JFVke11270@merlot.juniper.net> To: zinin@psg.com, fenner@research.att.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <25215.1090251106.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:31:46 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Cc: skh@nexthop.com, idr@ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, yakov@juniper.net Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-rfc2858bis-06.txt to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Alex and Bill, The IDR WG would like to ask the IESG to advance draft-ietf-idr-rfc2858bis-06.txt to Draft Standard. The implementation report is in draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA04373 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkqYQ-0002kX-UG; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:40:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkpZQ-00076Y-BQ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:37:36 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10772; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200407141937.PAA10772@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:37:34 -0400 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 Author(s) : E. Chen, S. Sangli Filename : draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2004-7-14 This document defines a new BGP capability termed 'Dynamic Capability', which would allow the dynamic update of capabilities over an established BGP session. This capability would facilitate non-disruptive capability changes by BGP speakers. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-14153320.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-14153320.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --NextPart-- Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA21923 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:47:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bkohi-0003HX-Ag; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:42:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkjdY-0002Yl-KS for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:17:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15237 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkjdX-00024m-WE for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:17:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BkjcZ-0001hR-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:16:28 -0400 Received: from smtp1.procket.com ([65.174.124.36]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BkjbX-0000wq-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:15:23 -0400 Received: from miata.procket.com (mil0-fw00-d-1.procket.com [65.174.124.60]) by smtp1.procket.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i6EFRduH071387; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange0-0.na.procket.com (exchange0a.na.procket.com [10.1.7.7]) by miata.procket.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i6EDElQb021835; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:14:47 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:14:47 -0700 Message-ID: <131B483ED10A9E48B8D6462A31C9AB240381603B@EXCHANGE0-0.na.procket.com> Thread-Topic: draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt Thread-Index: AcQtR4SjSRXvTlooSSOJ2pcgU0jXdQ367EJQARxB61A= From: "Srihari R. Sangli" To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:42:05 -0400 Cc: skh@nexthop.com, Yakov@juniper.net, Enke Chen Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-prefix-orf-07.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id OAA21923 Hi Yakov and Sue, I would like to request that the draft be accepted as an IDR WG document. Thanks. srihari... _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA14558 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:34:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkAvk-00053M-6J; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:13:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk92C-0006D5-06 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:12:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22124 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:12:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk92A-0002gX-K8 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:12:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk8zH-0001tS-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:09:28 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk8y5-0001I4-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:08:13 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i6CM7h960862 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:07:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i6CM7ce88190 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:07:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407122207.i6CM7ce88190@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <64381.1089670058.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:07:38 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Subject: [Idr] rfc2548bis implementation report X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Folks, Attached is the announcement of the implementation report for draft-ietf-idr-rfc2858bis-06.txt. Yakov. ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:36:06 -0400 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt - --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : MP-BGP implementation Report Author(s) : S. Hares Filename : draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2004-7-12 This document provides a survey of the BGP implementations supporting the multi-protocol extensions as specified in ietf-idr-rfc2858bis-06.txt implementations. After a brief summary, each response is listed. The editor makes no claim as to the accuracy of the information provided. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the mess age. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. - --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" - --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143251.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt - --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-hares-idr-rfc2858bis-survey-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143251.I-D@ietf.org> - --OtherAccess-- - --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce - --NextPart-- ------- End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA06099 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:46:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk6lK-0001vK-7Z; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:46:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk6cN-0007q4-A9; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:39 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04942; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200407121937.PAA04942@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:36 -0400 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGP MIB V1 implementation survey Author(s) : S. Hares, D. Hares Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt Pages : 36 Date : 2004-7-12 This document provides of survey of BGP-4 [BGP4] protocol implementing RFC 1657 MIB agents according to the [BGP-v1-MIB] specification. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143433.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mibagent-survey-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143433.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --NextPart-- Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA05662 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:38:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk6lH-0001v5-SD; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:46:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk6cJ-0007q2-6o; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:35 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04934; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200407121937.PAA04934@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:37:32 -0400 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGP 4 Implementation Report Author(s) : S. Hares, A. Retana Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt Pages : 86 Date : 2004-7-12 This document provides a survey of the BGP-4 implementation draft- ietf-idr-bgp4-24.txt. After a brief summary, each response is listed. The editor makes no claim as to the accuracy of the information provided. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143426.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-implementation-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-7-12143426.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --NextPart-- Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA12299 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk1YG-0004Mu-UU; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:13:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk1AV-00033r-Sg for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:48:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07245 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bk1AV-0007kj-7u for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:48:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk19f-0007YQ-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:47:39 -0400 Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bk19I-0007Lh-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0400 Received: from [205.168.100.50] (dhcp1.tcb.net [205.168.100.50]) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618CE64355 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:47:26 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: <200407110011.i6B0Bd2b084501@workhorse.faster-light.net> References: <200407110011.i6B0Bd2b084501@workhorse.faster-light.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:47:12 -0600 To: idr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org On Jul 10, 2004, at 6:11 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > ps - I like the paragraph: > > Seemingly more intuitive references that fall outside the vegetable > kingdom refer to cold potatoe routing as "best exit routing", and > hot potatoe routing as "closest exit routing", though vegetable. > > but it looks like the last two words don't belong there or were part > of something truncated like "though vegetable terminology was at least > initially much more common" (which we could probably drop anyway). Yep, I cleaned this up in the last version, which I still need to post.. And I indeed wasn't referring to buffers, queuing, store & forward, et al., though there is clearly underlying relation. -danny _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22966 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjgTA-0003xY-M7; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:42:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjgOR-0003Gy-Ss for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:37:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26874 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjgOR-0001cY-0m for idr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:37:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjgNU-0001RT-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:36:33 -0400 Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com ([169.144.68.6]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjgN9-0001Gz-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:36:11 -0400 Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6BFZb58022000; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04746; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:35:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:35:36 -0400 Message-ID: <5551AD75D2C0BC459A85A2CEFAE4F800012FAF@usvissfp01.win.marconi.com> From: "Naidu, Venkata" To: john smith Subject: RE: [Idr] Next Hop changes Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:35:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org John, -> > I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato -> come into play only -> > in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. -> Though, if I look up -> > the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like -> Data Networks by -> > Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not seem -> to be what is -> > referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers and -> discussions that I -> > see. The case and examples in the books never talk about -> multiple protocols -> > to put forth the point of Hot Potato routing. -> > -> > Perhaps someone could help clarify the definations in the -> 1st place, Yes. 'Hot-Potato routing' is an over-used term in routing and leads to confusion. I think, you are referring to book's classical defination: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0132009161/103-4767008-2544628 ?v=glance In data networks, hot-potato routing is nothing to do with BGP or IGPs. Rather more to do with queuing and buffer length estimations. Where packets are never buffered in routers queues and never dropped(unlike today's store and forward technique). Packets are always bounced back till reaches the destination. And this defination of 'get rid of packet from router's buffer as soon as possible' has changed to 'get rid of packet from the domain as soon as possible'. This has been transformed to 'nearest exit' - which is not the original intended definition. Venkata. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA11727 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjS2D-0006J7-Ml; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:17:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjS0W-00065C-QV for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:15:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08391 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjS0V-00068A-AA for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:15:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjRzX-0005oW-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:14:52 -0400 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjRya-0005Rt-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:13:52 -0400 Received: (qmail 36827 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2004 00:13:47 -0000 Received: from 69.37.59.162.adsl.snet.net (HELO workhorse.faster-light.net) (69.37.59.162) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2004 00:13:47 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 69.37.59.162 Received: from workhorse.faster-light.net (localhost.faster-light.net [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.faster-light.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6B0Bd2b084501; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:11:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.faster-light.net) Message-Id: <200407110011.i6B0Bd2b084501@workhorse.faster-light.net> To: "john smith" Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:23:08 -0000." Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:11:39 -0400 From: Curtis Villamizar X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@faster-light.net List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org In message "john smith" writes: > > > I am amazed no one has answered to this post. > > I have never seen the changes in BGP causing changes in IGP, as we rarely > ever have cases where people do BGP-->IGP. It would bring down your network > though :) What's the question you are looking to get answered? > I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato come into play only > in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. Though, if I look up > the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like Data Networks by > Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not seem to be what is > referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers and discussions that I > see. The case and examples in the books never talk about multiple protocols > to put forth the point of Hot Potato routing. > > Perhaps someone could help clarify the definations in the 1st place, > > -brgds > JS I have no idea who Gallager and Bertsekas are or what they wrote but I think Sean Doran or Peter Lothberg originally referred to using the IGP cost criteria in BGP MED as "hot potatoe" and passed across providers as "cold potatoe" (what a legacy). The definition should be clear in draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-experience-protocol-04.txt in Section 7.1.1. "MEDs and Potatoes". Curtis ps - I like the paragraph: Seemingly more intuitive references that fall outside the vegetable kingdom refer to cold potatoe routing as "best exit routing", and hot potatoe routing as "closest exit routing", though vegetable. but it looks like the last two words don't belong there or were part of something truncated like "though vegetable terminology was at least initially much more common" (which we could probably drop anyway). _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA26857 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjNf0-00016P-Ns; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:37:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjNZY-0000EI-EM for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:31:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28740 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjNZX-0001jS-4I for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:31:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjNYZ-0001Q9-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:30:43 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjNY1-00016H-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:30:09 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (c-24-5-4-40.client.comcast.net[24.5.4.40]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <20040710192938011009kg3je>; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:29:39 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7AB0C28A-D2A7-11D8-BDEB-000A95D1475E@tony.li> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Tony Li Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:29:36 -0700 To: "john smith" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org I'll try to answer both: 1) A change in BGP next hops should never lead to a change in IGP routes unless someone is doing redistribution. It _can_ of course, change how traffic flows internal to the domain. 2) Hot potato routing is also known as "nearest exit". The basic philosophy is that a transit provider wants to hand off the traffic with the fewest number of fiber miles/router hops/overall expense. Multiple protocols are not required. Tony On Jul 10, 2004, at 3:23 AM, john smith wrote: > > I am amazed no one has answered to this post. > > I have never seen the changes in BGP causing changes in IGP, as we > rarely ever have cases where people do BGP-->IGP. It would bring down > your network though :) > > I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato come into play > only in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. Though, > if I look up the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like > Data Networks by Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not > seem to be what is referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers > and discussions that I see. The case and examples in the books never > talk about multiple protocols to put forth the point of Hot Potato > routing. > > Perhaps someone could help clarify the definations in the 1st place, > > -brgds > JS > > >> From: "ephim era" >> Reply-To: ephim era >> To: idr@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes >> Date: 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000 >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim era wrote : >> >Hi All, >> > >> >Is there a scenario (protocol, deployment, configuration) wherein a >> change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP routes (or >> vice-versa) ? >> > >> >> case excluding redistribution of routes... ? >> >> >Thanks in advance, >> >Ephim >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Idr mailing list >> >Idr@ietf.org >> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Idr mailing list >> Idr@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA27626 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:36:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjF3r-0006Sh-Oy; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:26:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjF2m-0006Hj-6T for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:25:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA02932 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjF2j-0005Tl-Rx for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:25:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjF2K-0005Am-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:24:53 -0400 Received: from bay17-f22.bay17.hotmail.com ([64.4.43.72] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjF17-0004gq-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:23:38 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:23:09 -0700 Received: from 61.16.170.194 by by17fd.bay17.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:23:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [61.16.170.194] X-Originating-Email: [johnsmith0302@hotmail.com] X-Sender: johnsmith0302@hotmail.com From: "john smith" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:23:08 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2004 10:23:09.0161 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5857590:01C46667] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=no version=2.60 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org I am amazed no one has answered to this post. I have never seen the changes in BGP causing changes in IGP, as we rarely ever have cases where people do BGP-->IGP. It would bring down your network though :) I also feel that the concept of things like HOT Potato come into play only in the case when 1 protocol has to depend on the other. Though, if I look up the defination of Hot Potato in some classic books like Data Networks by Robert Gallager and Dimitri Bertsekas , it does not seem to be what is referred to as "Hot Paotato" in some other papers and discussions that I see. The case and examples in the books never talk about multiple protocols to put forth the point of Hot Potato routing. Perhaps someone could help clarify the definations in the 1st place, -brgds JS >From: "ephim era" >Reply-To: ephim era >To: idr@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes >Date: 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000 > > > > >On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim era wrote : > >Hi All, > > > >Is there a scenario (protocol, deployment, configuration) wherein a >change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP routes (or >vice-versa) ? > > > > case excluding redistribution of routes... ? > > >Thanks in advance, > >Ephim > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Idr mailing list > >Idr@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > >_______________________________________________ >Idr mailing list >Idr@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA25760 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjEdE-00027z-9L; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:58:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjEaf-0001oh-VZ for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:56:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01965 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BjEad-000441-JS for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:56:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BjEZf-0003jr-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:55:15 -0400 Received: from [203.199.83.246] (helo=rediffmail.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BjEYo-0003Pd-00 for idr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:54:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 15677 invoked by uid 510); 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000 Date: 10 Jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20040710095420.15676.qmail@webmail35.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (203.197.138.199) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 10 jul 2004 09:54:20 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "ephim era" To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] Next Hop changes X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, HTML_20_30,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08,HTML_MESSAGE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER autolearn=no version=2.60 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ephim era List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0253206178==" Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart mime message --===============0253206178== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Next_1089453260---0-203.199.83.246-15673" This is a multipart mime message --Next_1089453260---0-203.199.83.246-15673 Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0AOn Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim  era wrote :
= =0A>Hi All,
=0A>
=0A>Is there a scenario (protocol, deployme= nt, configuration) wherein a change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of cha= nges in IGP routes (or vice-versa) ?
=0A>
=0A
=0A case excludin= g redistribution of routes... ?
=0A
=0A>Thanks in advance,
=0A&= gt;Ephim
=0A>
=0A>_____________________________________________= __
=0A>Idr mailing list
=0A>Idr@ietf.org
=0A>https://www1= .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
=0A=0A

=0A

=0A=0A --Next_1089453260---0-203.199.83.246-15673 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A=0A=0AOn Wed, 07 Jul 2004 ephim era wrote :=0A>Hi All,=0A>=0A>Is there = a scenario (protocol, deployment, configuration) wherein a change in BGP ne= xthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP routes (or vice-versa) ?=0A>=0A= =0A case excluding redistribution of routes... ?=0A=0A>Thanks in advance,= =0A>Ephim=0A>=0A>_______________________________________________=0A>Idr mai= ling list=0A>Idr@ietf.org=0A>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr=0A --Next_1089453260---0-203.199.83.246-15673-- --===============0253206178== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --===============0253206178==-- Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA13209 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:43:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bj1dy-0000QZ-HP; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:06:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BizWc-0003x8-4X for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:51:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15017 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BizWW-0005d1-15 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:51:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BizVf-0005H3-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:50:07 -0400 Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.160.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BizUT-0004VY-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:48:53 -0400 Received: from tom3 (1Cust231.tnt30.lnd3.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.122.231]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E6271C002AA for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:48:21 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <017401c465dc$774d9480$0301a8c0@tom3> From: "Tom Petch" To: Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call on BGP Graceful Restart Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:43:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Tom Petch List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org A bit late I am afraid but ... I do think some aspects of this lack clarity and could do with more precise and consistent wording in order to increase the likelihood of compatible implementations.. 1) The End-of-RIB marker is a good thing, the I-D keeps saying so but ...If there has been no exchange of Graceful Restart Capability, can it still be sent? SHOULD NOT it? or what? And if there has been an exchange, again SHOULD it, MUST it? Section 5 says it is a good thing with no qualification; section 7 talks of the 'intention' of sending the marker after a GRC exchange (not our normal SHOULD/MUST language); section 6 says the procedures for the Receiving Speaker are defined in section 6.2 (actually 7.2) and here there is a SHALL but this only covers the restarting case; what about the initial startup - SHALL, SHOULD? 2) FSM I do not understand the pairing of TcpConnection_Valid (Event 14) with Tcp_CR_Acked (Event 16); normally it is TcpConnectionConfirmed (Event 17) that is paired with Event 14. Event 14 is the first sign of a remote speaker trying to talk to us; Event 17 is a later step in that process. Event 16 is the end result of us initiating a connection to the remote speaker. So we negotiate Graceful Restart capability for at least one AFI/SAFI, lose the TCP connection and do not notice, miss Event 14 because our engine does not generate it, get Event 17 and this is the first indication that we are about to become a Receiving Speaker; in response, we terminate the session killing all Graceful Restart. What have I got wrong? 3) forwarding state is used in several places and is never clearly defined; I think it should be. In 7.1 it talks of 'the forwarding state for the BGP routes in the Loc-RIB, and SHALL mark them as stale' suggesting that forwarding state is a set of flags, of which one is stale, in Loc-RIB; elsewhere it seems to be the Loc-RIB (but not the forwarding table?). If all we are doing is unicast BGP4, with no extensions, it probably does not matter but as BGP more complex, I believe it will. 4) In 7.1 we have ' When the Restarting Speaker restarts, possible it SHOULD retain, if possible, ' My first thought was that this is one too many 'possible's; on reflection, it is two too many; I do not believe we should be qualifying SHOULD at all - it is defined in RFC2119 and it is not for us to vary that. Tom Petch -----Original Message----- From: Yakov Rekhter To: idr@ietf.org Date: 17 June 2004 20:04 Subject: [Idr] WG Last Call on BGP Graceful Restart >Folks, > >This is to start the WG Last Call on advancing draft-ietf-idr-restart-10.txt >to a Proposed Standard. Since the the previous version of this document >already went through the WG Last Call, the main focus of this Last >Call is the new text on Finite State Machine. > >The Last Call ends July 1, 2004. > >Yakov. > >_______________________________________________ >Idr mailing list >Idr@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA13195 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:42:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bj1f4-0000yx-MF; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:07:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bizkn-0006E7-1G for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:05:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16417 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:05:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bizkg-0003dc-Vp for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:05:39 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bizjk-0003Gb-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:04:40 -0400 Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bizii-0002rI-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:03:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8505C517593; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02072-08; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fall.redback.com (fall.redback.com [155.53.44.81]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D15C51759D; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redback.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fall.redback.com (8.11.0/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) with ESMTP id i69I3Y803909; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200407091803.i69I3Y803909@fall.redback.com> To: yakov@juniper.net, skh@nexthop.com Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:03:34 -0700 From: Enke Chen X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Cc: enke@redback.com, idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Yakov and Sue: Here is an updated version (-01.txt) that we would like to present at the upcoming IDR meeting. Thanks. -- Enke ------- Forwarded Message To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:27:48 -0400 Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt Sender: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Advertisement of the Group Best Paths in BGP Author(s) : E. Chen, N. Chen Filename : draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2004-7-8 In this document we first identify and qualify the Group Best Paths for an address prefix as in general the necessary and sufficient subset of paths that need to be advertised by a BGP route reflector or a BGP confederation ASBR in order to eliminate the MED-type route oscillations and to achieve consistent routing in a network. We then propose a mechanism for BGP that would allow a route reflector or a confederation ASBR to advertise the Group Best Paths. The proposed mechanism is designed such that the vast majority of the BGP speakers in a network need only minor software changes in order to deploy the mechanism. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-01.txt ------- End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA22947 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:50:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bib5h-0005Ek-Cb; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:45:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BiGBv-0007Hu-5A for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:26:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02357 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:26:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BiGBo-00025c-Vv for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:26:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BiGAz-0001mp-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:25:46 -0400 Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.16]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BiGAR-0001Tm-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:25:11 -0400 Received: from ftrdmel3.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.155]) by parsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:24:20 +0200 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Subject: RE : [Idr] draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:24:19 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: RE : [Idr] draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt Thread-Index: AcRjyyMXw08LeUrkS4q7mfowVWL8sgAMOPxQABKeI+A= From: "DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2004 17:24:20.0668 (UTC) FILETIME=[3D4627C0:01C46447] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:45:39 -0400 Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id PAA22947 Hi Robert, Thanks for your review and comments. Comments in line, Regards, Nicolas, Bruno, Benoit > -----Original Message----- > From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Robert Raszuk > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:52 PM > To: DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS > Cc: idr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt > > > Hi Nicolas, > > Would it be possible to either add a section to your draft or > at least > discuss on the list why existing BGP attributes if properly > used can't > achieve the same goal of graceful shutdown of the BGP peer ? > Since your proposal already calls for full table churn I am > not sure if > using any existing tools would not help. Depending on the > e/iBGP cases a > router can effectively discourage peers from using his paths > simply by > injecting right values of MED, local preference or cost > community with > pre-best path POI. ND: Using existing attributes may be possible. But it's hard to know for a router, which BGP selection rule is beeing used by its peers and must be hit. As you said, it could be MED, local preference, dedicated community, IGP cost... ND: BGP withdraw have the following advantages: - the size of the message (shorter than new BGP updates) - independent of the BGP selection rules and policies used in peers routers. - same behavior for iBGP and eBGP sessions - No or very little modification of the existing BGP mechanisms ND: As written in the draft, these BGP withdraw could already be generated by a local policies filtering out all advertised routes. But using a local BGP policy would require changing the configuration each time and could generate errors. ND: We'll add a section in the draft to discuss your remarks. > Also I could have missed it but where is the boundary of your > graceful > shutdown ? Is this always only peer to peer (1:N) ? ND: I'm not sure I understand correctly your question. ND: This is a per BGP session (or per AFI/SAFI) mechanism. From the peers point of view, there is no change to the BGP behavior. An eBGP peer or a BGP RR will probably reflect the changes to their BGP sessions. > Rgs, > R. > > > > DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > We would appreciate your feedback. > > > > Thanks > > > > Nicolas, Bruno, Benoit > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. > > > > > > Title : Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions > > Author(s) : N. Dubois, et al. > > Filename : draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt > > Pages : 8 > > Date : 2004-6-30 > > > > To ease the maintenance of BGP-4 sessions and limit the amount of > > traffic that is lost during planned maintenance on routers, a > > specific mechanism is proposed in order to gracefully shutdown a > > router or a session. > > It's proposed that a router first withdraw its route to its peer > > to initiate their convergence. After a timer the router > can proceed > > with the closing of the BGP sessions and consequently remove its > > peers'routes from it's RIB (Routing Information Base). > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenan > > ce > > -00.txt > > > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > > i-d-announce-request at ietf.org with the word unsubscribe > in the body > > of the message. > > You can also visit > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > > to change your subscription settings. > > > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > > username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After > > logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then > > "get draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". > > > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > > > Send a message to: > > mailserv at ietf.org. > > In the body type: > > "FILE > /internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". > > > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant > mail readers > > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > > how to manipulate these messages. > > > > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > > Internet-Draft. > > > > ce > > -00.txt> > > > -00.txt> > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA29787 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 04:32:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi7UO-0003s2-2S; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 04:09:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi78V-0007TF-EW for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:46:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29077 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 03:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi78O-0004DR-7e for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:46:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bi76s-0003Oi-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:44:55 -0400 Received: from [203.199.83.248] (helo=rediffmail.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bi73w-0002e5-00 for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 03:41:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 18974 invoked by uid 510); 7 Jul 2004 07:41:50 -0000 Date: 7 Jul 2004 07:41:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20040707074150.18973.qmail@webmail36.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (203.197.138.199) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 07 jul 2004 07:41:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "ephim era" To: idr@ietf.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, HTML_30_40,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04,HTML_MESSAGE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER autolearn=no version=2.60 Subject: [Idr] Next Hop changes X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ephim era List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0875348035==" Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart mime message --===============0875348035== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Next_1089186110---0-203.199.83.248-18970" This is a multipart mime message --Next_1089186110---0-203.199.83.248-18970 Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0AHi All,
=0A
=0AIs there a scenario (protocol, deployment, confi= guration) wherein a change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in I= GP routes (or vice-versa) ?
=0A
=0AThanks in advance,
=0AEphim
= =0A
=0A=0A

=0A

=0A=0A --Next_1089186110---0-203.199.83.248-18970 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All,=0A=0AIs there a scenario (protocol, deployment, configuration) wher= ein a change in BGP nexthop could lead to sea of changes in IGP routes (or = vice-versa) ?=0A=0AThanks in advance,=0AEphim=0A=0A --Next_1089186110---0-203.199.83.248-18970-- --===============0875348035== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr --===============0875348035==-- Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA08612 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:01:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi0Oa-0003TZ-Hw; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 20:34:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bhxu5-0000DZ-3Y for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:55:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26493 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bhxty-0004VZ-MZ for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:54:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bhxst-0004BP-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:53:52 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BhxsI-0003rO-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:53:14 -0400 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2004 14:58:39 +0000 X-BrightmailFiltered: true Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i66LqVgI013384; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cisco.com (sj-rraszuk-vpn1.cisco.com [10.25.32.218]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id AVC89120; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <40EB1F13.6090904@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:52:19 -0700 From: Robert Raszuk Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Hi Nicolas, Would it be possible to either add a section to your draft or at least discuss on the list why existing BGP attributes if properly used can't achieve the same goal of graceful shutdown of the BGP peer ? Since your proposal already calls for full table churn I am not sure if using any existing tools would not help. Depending on the e/iBGP cases a router can effectively discourage peers from using his paths simply by injecting right values of MED, local preference or cost community with pre-best path POI. Also I could have missed it but where is the boundary of your graceful shutdown ? Is this always only peer to peer (1:N) ? Rgs, R. > DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS wrote: > > Hi, > > We would appreciate your feedback. > > Thanks > > Nicolas, Bruno, Benoit > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > Title : Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions > Author(s) : N. Dubois, et al. > Filename : draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2004-6-30 > > To ease the maintenance of BGP-4 sessions and limit the amount of > traffic that is lost during planned maintenance on routers, a > specific mechanism is proposed in order to gracefully shutdown a > router or a session. > It's proposed that a router first withdraw its route to its peer > to initiate their convergence. After a timer the router can proceed > with the closing of the BGP sessions and consequently remove its > peers'routes from it's RIB (Routing Information Base). > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance > -00.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request at ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body > of the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv at ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE > /internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail > readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -00.txt> > -00.txt> > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA05652 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 21:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bi016-0006YH-1f; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 20:10:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhwgP-0006KR-Kx for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:36:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20799 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:36:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhwgJ-00079H-C7 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:36:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BhwfO-0006q1-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:35:50 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bhwez-0006UD-00 for idr@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:35:25 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i66KYm996269 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:34:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i66KYhd80359 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:34:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407062034.i66KYhd80359@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <54459.1089146083.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:34:43 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Subject: [Idr] cutoff dates for the Internet Drafts X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Folks, Those who plan to make presentations at the upcoming IDR WG meeting, please note that the cut-off dates for the upcoming 60th IETF meeting are: Mon Jul 12, 0900 EDT: cutoff for initial (-00) I-D submissions Mon Jul 19, 0900 EDT: final cutoff for I-D submission Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA17314 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bhv0G-0005cz-RN; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:49:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfxMY-0000Aq-8J for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:56:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA06159 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 04:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BfxMV-0003SP-UB for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:56:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BfxLW-00033z-00 for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:55:07 -0400 Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BfxL6-0002gJ-00 for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:54:40 -0400 Received: from ftrdmel3.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.155]) by parsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:54:40 +0200 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:54:39 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt Thread-Index: AcRfSQtWJvRknp7FQL+jsdkJWUVl5A== From: "DUBOIS Nicolas FTRD/DAC/ISS" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2004 08:54:40.0883 (UTC) FILETIME=[0BD2C430:01C45F49] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:49:15 -0400 Subject: [Idr] draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic.merit.edu id PAA17314 Hi, We would appreciate your feedback. Thanks Nicolas, Bruno, Benoit A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions Author(s) : N. Dubois, et al. Filename : draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2004-6-30 To ease the maintenance of BGP-4 sessions and limit the amount of traffic that is lost during planned maintenance on routers, a specific mechanism is proposed in order to gracefully shutdown a router or a session. It's proposed that a router first withdraw its route to its peer to initiate their convergence. After a timer the router can proceed with the closing of the BGP sessions and consequently remove its peers'routes from it's RIB (Routing Information Base). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance -00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request at ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv at ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-dubois-bgp-planned-maintenance-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18898 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:12:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhVpy-0008IO-N3; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:56:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhVil-0007jz-1p for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:49:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04126 for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 11:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BhVif-0000fM-3g for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:49:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BhVhj-0000O7-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:48:28 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BhVgo-0007ct-00 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:47:30 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i65Fl0Bm091043; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:47:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i65Fl0d89963; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:47:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407051547.i65Fl0d89963@merlot.juniper.net> To: Enke Chen Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-00.txt In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:06:16 PDT." <200406291806.i5TI6Gh08552@fall.redback.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <30684.1089042420.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 08:47:00 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Cc: idr@ietf.org, naiming@redback.com X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Enke, > Hi, folks: > > Here is another attempt to tackle the issue of persistent IBGP > route oscillation. Please let us know if you have any comments > on the draft. Just to add to the above, draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-00.txt will be discussed at the upcoming IDR WG meeting. Yakov. > > Thanks. -- Enke > > ------- Forwarded Message > > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:27:53 -0400 > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-00.txt > Sender: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org > > --NextPart > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directorie s. > > > Title : Advertisement of the Group Best Paths in BGP > Author(s) : E. Chen > Filename : draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2004-6-28 > > In this document we first identify and qualify the Group Best Paths > for an address prefix as in general the necessary and sufficient > subset of paths that need to be advertised by a BGP route reflector > or a BGP confederation ASBR in order to eliminate the MED-type route > oscillations and to achieve consistent routing in a network. We then > propose a mechanism for BGP that would allow a route reflector or a > confederation ASBR to advertise the Group Best Paths. The proposed > mechanism is designed such that the vast majority of the BGP speakers > in a network need only minor software changes in order to deploy the > mechanism. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chen-bgp-group-path-update-00.txt > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22683 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgQUz-0003nC-NF; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:02:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgQIp-0004jR-D5 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:50:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14848 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgQIo-0001kz-IE for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:50:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BgQHI-0001D4-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:48:42 -0400 Received: from smtp.dataconnection.com ([192.91.191.4] helo=smtp.datcon.co.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BgQFV-0000IK-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:46:51 -0400 Received: by goodman.datcon.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:46:11 +0100 Message-ID: <53F74F5A7B94D511841C00B0D0AB16F802B13A81@baker.datcon.co.uk> From: Michael Dell To: "'Eric P. Barrett'" , idr@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Idr] Aggregation Question Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:46:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Cc: X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Hi Eric The first quote, from section 9.2.2.2, is saying that you can only aggregate together attributes of the same type. This is pretty obvious, and just means you can't try to aggregate next-hop information (type code 3) with local_pref information (type code 5). The second quote requires that the atomic aggregate attribute is not lost during the aggregation. Technically, if 1 route has the atomic aggregate attribute, and another does not, then you are not aggregating two attributes of different type codes, you are merely aggregating an attribute with nothing, and ending up with the original attribute. Regards Mike Dell Networking Protocols Group Data Connection Ltd Tel: +44 20 8366 1177 Fax: +44 20 8367 8501 E-mail: mike.dell@dataconnection.com Web: http://www.dataconnection.com -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Eric P. Barrett Sent: 02 July 2004 15:03 To: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] Aggregation Question Hi, According to draft 24, "Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together." Later, it says "If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route SHALL have this attribute as well." My question is, wouldn't all the routes have to have the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in order for aggregation to take place based on the initial quote? The way the second quote's worded, it sounds like that wouldn't necessarily have to be the case. Thanks. Eric _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19009 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgOid-0001RP-Cq; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:08:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgOfP-0007iU-LZ for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:05:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06731 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgOfO-0005II-Ug for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:05:27 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BgOeI-0004vj-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:04:18 -0400 Received: from io.iol.unh.edu ([132.177.123.82]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BgOdP-0004KM-00 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:03:23 -0400 Received: from io.iol.unh.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by io.iol.unh.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i62E2pl1014308 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:02:51 -0400 Received: (from apache@localhost) by io.iol.unh.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id i62E2oij014307 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:02:50 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: io.iol.unh.edu: apache set sender to ebarrett@iol.unh.edu using -f Received: from alias.iol.unh.edu (alias.iol.unh.edu [132.177.118.53]) by webmail.iol.unh.edu (IMP) with HTTP for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:02:50 -0400 Message-ID: <1088776970.af842f5e425d3@webmail.iol.unh.edu> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:02:50 -0400 From: "Eric P. Barrett" To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs X-Originating-IP: 132.177.118.53 X-UNH-IOL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact systems@iol.unh.edu for more information X-UNH-IOL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ebarrett@iol.unh.edu X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Idr] Aggregation Question X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Hi, According to draft 24, "Path attributes that have different type codes can not be aggregated together." Later, it says "If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route SHALL have this attribute as well." My question is, wouldn't all the routes have to have the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute in order for aggregation to take place based on the initial quote? The way the second quote's worded, it sounds like that wouldn't necessarily have to be the case. Thanks. Eric _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA27585 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgE5v-0005LW-3x; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:48:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgDz4-00023S-Ae for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:41:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17009 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgDz2-0006qe-Hx for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:41:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BgDy2-0006U3-00 for idr@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:39:58 -0400 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BgDxY-000683-00; Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:39:28 -0400 Received: from merlot.juniper.net (merlot.juniper.net [172.17.27.10]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i622cvBm077740; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i622cvd88034; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200407020238.i622cvd88034@merlot.juniper.net> To: zinin@psg.com, fenner@research.att.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <70099.1088735937.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:38:57 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Cc: skh@nexthop.com, idr@ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, yakov@juniper.net Subject: [Idr] BGP Graceful Restart to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org Alex and Bill, The IDR WG would like to ask the IESG to to advance draft-ietf-idr-restart-10.txt to a Proposed Standard. The implementation report is in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-survey-01.txt. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr