From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 1 05:40:53 2005 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 FAA10601; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 05:40:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHJhV-0004Hv-5A; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 05:48:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHJXt-0007gt-M3; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 05:38:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHJXr-0007gi-Dw for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 05:38:31 -0500 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 FAA10311 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 05:38:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from albatross.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.49]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHJf9-0004C6-27 for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 05:46:04 -0500 Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.120]) by albatross.ericsson.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/WIREfire-1.8b) with ESMTP id j31AbjhE008853; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:38:11 +0200 (MEST) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:37:55 +0200 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: RE: [Idr] Link failures and hot-potato routing Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:37:54 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Idr] Link failures and hot-potato routing Thread-Index: AcU2b35TQbKo0mHSRlqiok6Bpbn3lQANVHqg From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E1s_Cs=E1sz=E1r_=28IJ/ETH=29?= To: "Sebastien Tandel" , "Andrew Lee" , "Curtis Villamizar" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2005 10:37:55.0120 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD0FD300:01C536A6] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi people! Thanks for the useful answers. So, with pure IP it is a non-neglactable = phenomenon that IGP path changes result in edge router change as well = (i.e. BGP path changes). However, if MPLS shortcuts are appropriately configured between edge = devices, this will not occur. And what about timing? If I remember correctly, there is no upcall from = IGPs to BGP if the intra-domain path cost changes, so the router will = not immediately detect the change. Instead, the BGP process runs = periodical scans for IGP changes, is that right? What is a practical = value for this timer, 60sec? What do you think, is the following scenario practically possible: - In an AS, packets are forwarded to a destination D between the ingress = router I1 and the egress router E1. - At a point, an intermediate link goes down, IGP has a re-route between = I1-E1. The path changes the first time due to IGP re-route. (Sprint = results show that sub-second IGP convergence is realistic.) - The new path has a higher cost than an alternative I1-E2 route, i.e. = some time later the BGP process will select this as a new best path, so = we'll have a second route change, e.g. a minute later. Thanks, Andr=E1s ----Original Message---- From: Sebastien Tandel [mailto:sta@info.ucl.ac.be] Sent: 2005. =E1prilis 1. 6:01 To: Andr=E1s Cs=E1sz=E1r (IJ/ETH) Cc: sta@info.ucl.ac.be Subject: Re: [Idr] Link failures and hot-potato routing >> Hi! >>=20 >> Does anyone have any statistical data how often intra-domain link >> failures cause that a new (egress) edge router is used after the >> failure? =20 >>=20 >> Am I correct to assume that this is very much possible with BGP in >> case of hot-potato routing (i.e. if the best path is selected based >> on the IGP cost metric)? =20 >>=20 > yes, it may be the case. >=20 >> For example, if the new path between the original ingress-egress >> routers after re-routing has a higher IGP cost after an IGP SPF >> calculation than another path between the original ingress and >> another egress edge router. correct ! =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > There's a paper on this topic from Renata Teixeira and Jenifer Rexford > submitted to PAM05: > http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~teixeira/tm.pdf >=20 > As Abilene was mentioned, there is also the european counterpart, > GEANT, from which a study has been made but the paper is only > submitted. It's a different way to study this case but I can't say > you more until the paper is accepted ... :( >=20 > It's a hot topic for the moment, nobody really knows the actual > implications of the interaction between the IGP and BGP in practice. > But in a few words, it strongly depends on the design of the IGP and > the eBGP peerings. If you want more information than ones in the paper > forementioned you may send me a mail. >=20 >=20 > Sebastien Tandel _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 1 11:19:35 2005 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 LAA09703; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:19:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHOzK-0008MV-6c; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:27:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHOq0-0007uU-S8; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:17:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHOpz-0007uF-6O for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:17:35 -0500 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 LAA09429 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:17:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay00.pair.com ([209.68.1.20] helo=relay.pair.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHOxI-0008Hk-7c for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:25:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 24193 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2005 16:17:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO workhorse.faster-light.net) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 1 Apr 2005 16:17:30 -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 j31GGEIF036434; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:16:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.faster-light.net) Message-Id: <200504011616.j31GGEIF036434@workhorse.faster-light.net> To: Andr s Cs sz r (IJ/ETH) Subject: Re: [Idr] Link failures and hot-potato routing In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:37:54 +0200." Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:16:14 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Cc: Sebastien Tandel , idr@ietf.org, Andrew Lee 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-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 In message Andr s Cs sz r writes: > > And what about timing? If I remember correctly, there is no upcall > from IGPs to BGP if the intra-domain path cost changes, so the router > will not immediately detect the change. Instead, the BGP process runs > periodical scans for IGP changes, is that right? What is a practical > value for this timer, 60sec? That's implementation dependent. A decade ago that is how the leading vendor(s) did things. Today most widely used implementations afaik do the IGP SPF within 10s of msec of an isolated IGP change, a few 100 msec normal worst case (flood of IGP changes), then apply BGP routes to the new IGP next hops immediately after IGP routes are changed. Vendors are claiming sub-second to a few seconds of convergence of BGP after IGP change though some claims may not be specific about how many BGP routes. 60 sec on IGP change is not viable product today at least for core routers. Might be OK for enterprise but not desireable. Curtis ps - This is really about implementation and not about protocol. Please excuse the continuation of this slightly off topic discussion (slightly off topic for the IDR mailing list). _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 1 15:52:19 2005 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 PAA14081; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:52:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHTFH-0004ec-EY; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:59:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHShM-0002Zk-Km; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:24:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHShI-0002Z5-Qw; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:24:52 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05885; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:24:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200504012024.PAA05885@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:24:48 -0500 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-orf-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-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf3becbbd6d1a45acbe2ffd4ab88bdc2 --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 : Address Prefix Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4 Author(s) : E. Chen Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-orf-01.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2005-4-1 This document defines a new Outbound Router Filter type for BGP, termed "Address Prefix Outbound Route Filter", that can be used to perform address prefix based route filtering. This ORF-type supports prefix length or range based matching, wild-card based address prefix matching, as well as the exact address prefix matching for address families. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-orf-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-prefix-orf-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-prefix-orf-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: <2005-4-1155039.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-orf-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-orf-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-4-1155039.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 Apr 4 13:34:22 2005 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 NAA02762; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:34:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIVax-0001R8-Vg; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:42:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIVNT-0004o7-2U; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:28:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DIVNR-0004nz-0P for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:28:41 -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 NAA02305 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns2.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.217] helo=aa-mx2.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIVVO-0001Cf-N0 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:36:56 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx2.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2894ACF9; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:28:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aa-mx2.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx2.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21850-01-41; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx2.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F534AD51; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id j34H3Sg22219; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:03:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:03:28 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Acharya Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP nexthop calculation question Message-ID: <20050404170328.GX17705@nexthop.com> References: <20050225144036.GB3743@nexthop.com> <20050228024820.716.qmail@web86910.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050228024820.716.qmail@web86910.mail.ukl.yahoo.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: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 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: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Acharya, On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:48:20AM +0000, Acharya wrote: > Infact, since the latest versions of BSD, and Linux > since the start, allow IF-address configuration as in: > eth1 = 10.10.10.1/24 and eth2 = 10.10.10.2/24, its > next to imppossible to actually detect, on the RUT, > whether two Nbrs have direct connectivity or not. In ipv4, in the above configuration, you are declaring that both of the above interfaces are on the same logical subnet. If they don't share a common physical subnet, this is a configuration error. In ipv6, for ipv6 link-local addresses, this would be different. However, RFC 2545 mandates that a global address be sent with the nexthop. As such, it is possible for two global addresses be configured on the subnet as above. For purposes of first vs. third party nexthop behavior, the check is against the global address since it is a nonsensical check against the link-local address. [elided] > The above statement makes the provision of a command > akin to "nexthop-self" mandatory. > > This would become a requirement if both TR2 and TR1, > in Cleary's example, are IPv6-Link-local neighbors > which donot have direct reachability to each other. > Then its impossible for the RUT to check whether "the > router" is reachable for the neighbor! There was a proposal a while back for utilizing link-local peering sessions. In this proposal, only a link-local address was exchanged in the MP-BGP nexthop field. I don't believe this proposal ever gained traction in the IDR WG. > Acharya. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 5 16:02:49 2005 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 QAA05663; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DIuOO-0001wX-PB; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:11:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItnE-00053N-Qd; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:32:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItnB-00052l-4N; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:32:53 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24235; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200504051932.PAA24235@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:32:50 -0400 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-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-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf3becbbd6d1a45acbe2ffd4ab88bdc2 --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 : AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4 Author(s) : E. Chen, J. Yuan Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-05.txt Pages : 5 Date : 2005-4-5 To accommodate situations where the current requirements for the BGP Identifier are not met, this document relaxes the definition of the BGP Identifier to be a 4-octet unsigned, non-zero integer, and relaxes the 'uniqueness' requirement so that only AS-wide uniqueness of the BGP Identifiers is required. These revisions to the base BGP specification do not introduce any backward compatibility issue. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-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-bgp-identifier-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-bgp-identifier-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: <2005-4-5160153.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-4-5160153.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 Apr 11 17:04:39 2005 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 RAA28610; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:04:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DL6El-0007o1-Jr; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:14:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DL5YA-0000r1-VI; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:30:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DL5Y9-0000iD-Un for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:30:25 -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 QAA21182 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:29:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DL5gw-0005H8-F6 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:39:31 -0400 Received: from zcars2ky.ca.nortel.com (zcars2ky.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.221]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j3BKTUX07218 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:29:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard305.ca.nortel.com (zcard305.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.61]) by zcars2ky.ca.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j3BKTV301144 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:29:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zcard305.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:29:29 -0400 Message-ID: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B403049DF9@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> From: "Sharon Chisholm" To: idr@ietf.org Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:29:18 -0400 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: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Subject: [Idr] FW: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-04.txt Expired 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: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Resending since this didn't go through due to email address issues (mine) ... -----Original Message----- From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:24 PM To: 'idr@ietf.org' Subject: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-04.txt Expired hi It seems that draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-04.txt has expired. Sharon Chisholm Nortel Ottawa, Ontario Canada _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 18 14:28:18 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DNayo-0006iS-9e; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:28:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DNaym-0006iN-Ce for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:28:16 -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 OAA14271 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DNb9c-0001ac-To for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:39:30 -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 j3IIS3969436; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:28:03 -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 j3IIRge35593; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:27:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200504181827.j3IIRge35593@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <51701.1113848862.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:27:42 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Cc: skh@nexthop.com, Rick Wilder Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-l3vpn-rt-constrain-01.txt review 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, draft-ietf-l3vpn-rt-constrain-01.txt has completed last call in the L3VPN WG. The area directors have asked for it to be reviewed by the IDR WG. The deadline for comments is May 2, 2005. Yakov. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 21 10:30:27 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DOchH-0000za-Dn; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:30:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DOchD-0000yK-6v; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:30:25 -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 KAA04406; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rose.ctd.hcltech.com ([202.54.64.23]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DOcmL-0000S2-Gx; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:35:43 -0400 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message X-MessageTextProcessor: DisclaimIt (2.50.252) [HCL Technologies Limited] Received: from Ganesh.ctd.hcltech.com ([202.54.64.2]) by rose.ctd.hcltech.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:53:40 +0530 Received: by Ganesh.ctd.hcltech.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:53:40 +0530 Message-ID: <68C9DA8F50019B4E8622C53811BEE1D602BE2954@kavithai.ctd.hcltech.com> From: "Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai." To: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:53:31 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2005 14:23:40.0987 (UTC) FILETIME=[B74A18B0:01C5467D] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: balaji@avici.com, vijayc@avici.com Subject: [Idr] redistributing isis v6 routes into BGP 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 Hello all, I have a question regarding redistribution of IPv6 ISIS routes into BGP. The v6 routes of ISIS have link local next hops. So, when these are redistributed into I-BGP( without route maps having next hop set clause), what should be the value of global next hop v6 address to be sent in the update message. Would it be the global address of the interface corresponding to the link local next hop or the global address of the interface over which the IBGP peering is established or something else. Thanks in advance, Regards, Vijay DISCLAIMER This message and any attachment(s) contained here are information that is confidential, proprietary to HCL Technologies and its customers. Contents may be privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the individual or the entity it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, forward, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 22 14:16:26 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DP2hV-00087s-VK; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:16:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DP2hU-00087k-Aq; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:16:24 -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 OAA09806; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gateway.avici.com ([208.246.215.5] helo=mailhost.avici.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DP2t4-000158-4D; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:28:23 -0400 Received: from hgowdapc (hgowda-pc.avici.com [10.2.20.191]) by mailhost.avici.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id j3MIFn7k018961; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:15:50 -0400 From: "Harisreeprasad Gowda" To: "Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai." , , Subject: RE: [Idr] redistributing isis v6 routes into BGP Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:15:50 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <68C9DA8F50019B4E8622C53811BEE1D602BE2954@kavithai.ctd.hcltech.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-Avici-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: balaji@avici.com, vijayc@avici.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 I think it should be the global address of the interface over which the IBGP peering is established. -Hari. -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:24 AM To: ipv6@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org Cc: balaji@avici.com; vijayc@avici.com Subject: [Idr] redistributing isis v6 routes into BGP Hello all, I have a question regarding redistribution of IPv6 ISIS routes into BGP. The v6 routes of ISIS have link local next hops. So, when these are redistributed into I-BGP( without route maps having next hop set clause), what should be the value of global next hop v6 address to be sent in the update message. Would it be the global address of the interface corresponding to the link local next hop or the global address of the interface over which the IBGP peering is established or something else. Thanks in advance, Regards, Vijay DISCLAIMER This message and any attachment(s) contained here are information that is confidential, proprietary to HCL Technologies and its customers. Contents may be privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the individual or the entity it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, forward, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. _______________________________________________ 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 Apr 22 23:20:42 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DPBC7-0002vM-LP; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:20:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DPBBW-0002jP-Bu for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:19:59 -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 XAA29866 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:19:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web86907.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.13.59]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DPBNF-0000oV-6W for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:32:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 97523 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Apr 2005 03:19:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20050423031946.97521.qmail@web86907.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.223.109.2] by web86907.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 23 Apr 2005 04:19:46 BST Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 04:19:46 +0100 (BST) From: Acharya Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP nexthop calculation question To: Jeffrey Haas In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d2e37451f7f22841e3b6f40c67db0f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Jeff, --- Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Acharya, > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:48:20AM +0000, Acharya > wrote: > > Infact, since the latest versions of BSD, and > Linux > > since the start, allow IF-address configuration as > in: > > eth1 = 10.10.10.1/24 and eth2 = 10.10.10.2/24, its > > next to imppossible to actually detect, on the > RUT, > > whether two Nbrs have direct connectivity or not. > > In ipv4, in the above configuration, you are > declaring that both > of the above interfaces are on the same logical > subnet. If they > don't share a common physical subnet, this is a > configuration > error. > They need not share a common physical subnet and it actually makes no difference whether they do share a common physical subnet or not. One may say certain aspects of the network may be undefined but as its today with linux/netbsd, it is configurable and valid since both interfaces come up fine and one can ping and do the "regular stuff". > In ipv6, for ipv6 link-local addresses, this would > be different. Configuring overlapping addresses on different physical I/Fs was allowed in dual-stack Linux/Netbsd basically because of the L-Local IPv6 addresses all having the same subnet mask by default. So v6 LLocal is no strange scenario or in any way different. So in the dual-stack kernels, other a-families (non-LLocal) have just been made to fall inline with the same checks in code. > However, RFC 2545 mandates that a global address be > sent with > the nexthop. As such, it is possible for two global > addresses > be configured on the subnet as above. For purposes > of first > vs. third party nexthop behavior, the check is > against the > global address since it is a nonsensical check > against the > link-local address. > If one configures LLocal neighbors, there is no way the NHop can be Global. (Also see the following comment) > [elided] > > The above statement makes the provision of a > command > > akin to "nexthop-self" mandatory. > > > > This would become a requirement if both TR2 and > TR1, > > in Cleary's example, are IPv6-Link-local neighbors > > which donot have direct reachability to each > other. > > Then its impossible for the RUT to check whether > "the > > router" is reachable for the neighbor! > > There was a proposal a while back for utilizing > link-local peering > sessions. In this proposal, only a link-local > address was exchanged > in the MP-BGP nexthop field. I don't believe this > proposal ever > gained traction in the IDR WG. Well, if NextHop.com does not support configuring BGP peers with LLocal Addresses just because your belief against it, doesnt mean the world will follow. Infact the world (Cisco & Junos) does allow configuring BGP peers with LLocal addresses. So NextHop.com better follow suite! Nothing personal here. Infact, 2545 does not explicitly preclude the use of LLocal NHop addresses with "MUST NOT"/"SHALL NOT" (uppercase). Its terminology is more suggestive than preclusive. Acharya. > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr From idr-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 29 17:59:56 2005 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DRdWe-0002so-N4; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:59:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DRdWZ-0002s2-7e; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:59:51 -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 RAA18615; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:59:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DRdji-0006t1-AH; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:13:26 -0400 Received: from apache by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DRdWY-0008Vn-77; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:59:50 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Message-Id: Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:59:50 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: idr chair , idr mailing list , idr chair , Internet Architecture Board , RFC Editor Subject: [Idr] Document Action: 'Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic' to Informational RFC 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 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic ' as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Bill Fenner and Alex Zinin. Technical Summary This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing, to Historic status. Implementations of RFC 1863 route servers do not exist, and are not used as an alternative to full mesh routing. Working Group Summary The Working Group had consensus to reclassify RFC 1863. Protocol Quality Bill Fenner reviewed this document for the IESG. _______________________________________________ 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 SAA17125 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DRdWe-0002so-Kg; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:59:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DRdWZ-0002s2-7e; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:59:51 -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 RAA18615; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:59:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.151.6.50] (helo=newodin.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DRdji-0006t1-AH; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:13:26 -0400 Received: from apache by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DRdWY-0008Vn-77; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:59:50 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Message-Id: Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:59:50 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: idr chair , idr mailing list , idr chair , Internet Architecture Board , RFC Editor Subject: [Idr] Document Action: 'Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic' to Informational RFC 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 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic ' as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Bill Fenner and Alex Zinin. Technical Summary This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing, to Historic status. Implementations of RFC 1863 route servers do not exist, and are not used as an alternative to full mesh routing. Working Group Summary The Working Group had consensus to reclassify RFC 1863. Protocol Quality Bill Fenner reviewed this document for the IESG. _______________________________________________ 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 XAA20604 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DPBC7-0002vM-Dj; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:20:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DPBBW-0002jP-Bu for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:19:59 -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 XAA29866 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:19:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web86907.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.13.59]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DPBNF-0000oV-6W for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:32:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 97523 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Apr 2005 03:19:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20050423031946.97521.qmail@web86907.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.223.109.2] by web86907.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 23 Apr 2005 04:19:46 BST Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 04:19:46 +0100 (BST) From: Acharya Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP nexthop calculation question To: Jeffrey Haas In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d2e37451f7f22841e3b6f40c67db0f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Jeff, --- Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Acharya, > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:48:20AM +0000, Acharya > wrote: > > Infact, since the latest versions of BSD, and > Linux > > since the start, allow IF-address configuration as > in: > > eth1 = 10.10.10.1/24 and eth2 = 10.10.10.2/24, its > > next to imppossible to actually detect, on the > RUT, > > whether two Nbrs have direct connectivity or not. > > In ipv4, in the above configuration, you are > declaring that both > of the above interfaces are on the same logical > subnet. If they > don't share a common physical subnet, this is a > configuration > error. > They need not share a common physical subnet and it actually makes no difference whether they do share a common physical subnet or not. One may say certain aspects of the network may be undefined but as its today with linux/netbsd, it is configurable and valid since both interfaces come up fine and one can ping and do the "regular stuff". > In ipv6, for ipv6 link-local addresses, this would > be different. Configuring overlapping addresses on different physical I/Fs was allowed in dual-stack Linux/Netbsd basically because of the L-Local IPv6 addresses all having the same subnet mask by default. So v6 LLocal is no strange scenario or in any way different. So in the dual-stack kernels, other a-families (non-LLocal) have just been made to fall inline with the same checks in code. > However, RFC 2545 mandates that a global address be > sent with > the nexthop. As such, it is possible for two global > addresses > be configured on the subnet as above. For purposes > of first > vs. third party nexthop behavior, the check is > against the > global address since it is a nonsensical check > against the > link-local address. > If one configures LLocal neighbors, there is no way the NHop can be Global. (Also see the following comment) > [elided] > > The above statement makes the provision of a > command > > akin to "nexthop-self" mandatory. > > > > This would become a requirement if both TR2 and > TR1, > > in Cleary's example, are IPv6-Link-local neighbors > > which donot have direct reachability to each > other. > > Then its impossible for the RUT to check whether > "the > > router" is reachable for the neighbor! > > There was a proposal a while back for utilizing > link-local peering > sessions. In this proposal, only a link-local > address was exchanged > in the MP-BGP nexthop field. I don't believe this > proposal ever > gained traction in the IDR WG. Well, if NextHop.com does not support configuring BGP peers with LLocal Addresses just because your belief against it, doesnt mean the world will follow. Infact the world (Cisco & Junos) does allow configuring BGP peers with LLocal addresses. So NextHop.com better follow suite! Nothing personal here. Infact, 2545 does not explicitly preclude the use of LLocal NHop addresses with "MUST NOT"/"SHALL NOT" (uppercase). Its terminology is more suggestive than preclusive. Acharya. > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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 OAA20681 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:20:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DP2hV-00087s-ST; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:16:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DP2hU-00087k-Aq; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:16:24 -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 OAA09806; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gateway.avici.com ([208.246.215.5] helo=mailhost.avici.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DP2t4-000158-4D; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:28:23 -0400 Received: from hgowdapc (hgowda-pc.avici.com [10.2.20.191]) by mailhost.avici.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id j3MIFn7k018961; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:15:50 -0400 From: "Harisreeprasad Gowda" To: "Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai." , , Subject: RE: [Idr] redistributing isis v6 routes into BGP Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:15:50 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <68C9DA8F50019B4E8622C53811BEE1D602BE2954@kavithai.ctd.hcltech.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-Avici-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: balaji@avici.com, vijayc@avici.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 I think it should be the global address of the interface over which the IBGP peering is established. -Hari. -----Original Message----- From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:24 AM To: ipv6@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org Cc: balaji@avici.com; vijayc@avici.com Subject: [Idr] redistributing isis v6 routes into BGP Hello all, I have a question regarding redistribution of IPv6 ISIS routes into BGP. The v6 routes of ISIS have link local next hops. So, when these are redistributed into I-BGP( without route maps having next hop set clause), what should be the value of global next hop v6 address to be sent in the update message. Would it be the global address of the interface corresponding to the link local next hop or the global address of the interface over which the IBGP peering is established or something else. Thanks in advance, Regards, Vijay DISCLAIMER This message and any attachment(s) contained here are information that is confidential, proprietary to HCL Technologies and its customers. Contents may be privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the individual or the entity it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, forward, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. _______________________________________________ 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 KAA10519 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DOchH-0000za-90; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:30:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DOchD-0000yK-6v; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:30:25 -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 KAA04406; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rose.ctd.hcltech.com ([202.54.64.23]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DOcmL-0000S2-Gx; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:35:43 -0400 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message X-MessageTextProcessor: DisclaimIt (2.50.252) [HCL Technologies Limited] Received: from Ganesh.ctd.hcltech.com ([202.54.64.2]) by rose.ctd.hcltech.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:53:40 +0530 Received: by Ganesh.ctd.hcltech.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:53:40 +0530 Message-ID: <68C9DA8F50019B4E8622C53811BEE1D602BE2954@kavithai.ctd.hcltech.com> From: "Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai." To: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:53:31 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2005 14:23:40.0987 (UTC) FILETIME=[B74A18B0:01C5467D] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: balaji@avici.com, vijayc@avici.com Subject: [Idr] redistributing isis v6 routes into BGP 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 Hello all, I have a question regarding redistribution of IPv6 ISIS routes into BGP. The v6 routes of ISIS have link local next hops. So, when these are redistributed into I-BGP( without route maps having next hop set clause), what should be the value of global next hop v6 address to be sent in the update message. Would it be the global address of the interface corresponding to the link local next hop or the global address of the interface over which the IBGP peering is established or something else. Thanks in advance, Regards, Vijay DISCLAIMER This message and any attachment(s) contained here are information that is confidential, proprietary to HCL Technologies and its customers. Contents may be privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the individual or the entity it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, forward, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. _______________________________________________ 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 OAA12323 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DNayo-0006iS-6g; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:28:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DNaym-0006iN-Ce for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:28:16 -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 OAA14271 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DNb9c-0001ac-To for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:39:30 -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 j3IIS3969436; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:28:03 -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 j3IIRge35593; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:27:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200504181827.j3IIRge35593@merlot.juniper.net> To: idr@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <51701.1113848862.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:27:42 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Cc: skh@nexthop.com, Rick Wilder Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-l3vpn-rt-constrain-01.txt review 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, draft-ietf-l3vpn-rt-constrain-01.txt has completed last call in the L3VPN WG. The area directors have asked for it to be reviewed by the IDR WG. The deadline for comments is May 2, 2005. 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 RAA23028 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DL5YA-0000r1-SZ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:30:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DL5Y9-0000iD-Un for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:30:25 -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 QAA21182 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:29:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DL5gw-0005H8-F6 for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:39:31 -0400 Received: from zcars2ky.ca.nortel.com (zcars2ky.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.221]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j3BKTUX07218 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:29:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard305.ca.nortel.com (zcard305.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.61]) by zcars2ky.ca.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id j3BKTV301144 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:29:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zcard305.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:29:29 -0400 Message-ID: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B403049DF9@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> From: "Sharon Chisholm" To: idr@ietf.org Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:29:18 -0400 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: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Subject: [Idr] FW: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-04.txt Expired 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 Resending since this didn't go through due to email address issues (mine) ... -----Original Message----- From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:24 PM To: 'idr@ietf.org' Subject: draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-04.txt Expired hi It seems that draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-04.txt has expired. Sharon Chisholm Nortel Ottawa, Ontario Canada _______________________________________________ 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 QAA07035 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItnE-00053N-Nj; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:32:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DItnB-00052l-4N; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:32:53 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24235; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200504051932.PAA24235@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:32:50 -0400 Cc: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-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 : AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4 Author(s) : E. Chen, J. Yuan Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-05.txt Pages : 5 Date : 2005-4-5 To accommodate situations where the current requirements for the BGP Identifier are not met, this document relaxes the definition of the BGP Identifier to be a 4-octet unsigned, non-zero integer, and relaxes the 'uniqueness' requirement so that only AS-wide uniqueness of the BGP Identifiers is required. These revisions to the base BGP specification do not introduce any backward compatibility issue. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-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-bgp-identifier-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-bgp-identifier-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: <2005-4-5160153.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-4-5160153.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--