From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 03:42:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01899 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:42:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjd3-0001Mt-6M; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjci-0001MX-Be for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:41:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01879 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:41:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjce-0005do-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:41:36 -0500 Received: from [64.106.140.220] (helo=mail.apara.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjcd-0005dl-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:41:35 -0500 Received: from mail.apara.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB18kDd24661 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:16:13 +0530 Received: from ALOK ([203.124.140.97]) (authenticated) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB18k9M24648; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:16:10 +0530 Message-ID: <042001c3b7e6$9fa99cc0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> From: "Alok Dube" To: "Tony Li" , "Tulip Rasputin" , References: Subject: Re: bgp router id Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:09:14 +0530 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > b) Since the router ID is used to resolve the opening of the connection, > it does NOT matter which address the router uses as long as it is > globally unique. Using an RFC 1918 address would be... unfortunate. ....even if it is within an AS? (on iBGP interfaces)? -thanks Alok _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 03:42:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01914 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjdO-0001PF-N4 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:42:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB18gMx7005328 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:42:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjd3-0001Mt-6M; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjci-0001MX-Be for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:41:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01879 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:41:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjce-0005do-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:41:36 -0500 Received: from [64.106.140.220] (helo=mail.apara.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjcd-0005dl-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:41:35 -0500 Received: from mail.apara.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB18kDd24661 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:16:13 +0530 Received: from ALOK ([203.124.140.97]) (authenticated) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB18k9M24648; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:16:10 +0530 Message-ID: <042001c3b7e6$9fa99cc0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> From: "Alok Dube" To: "Tony Li" , "Tulip Rasputin" , References: Subject: Re: bgp router id Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:09:14 +0530 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > b) Since the router ID is used to resolve the opening of the connection, > it does NOT matter which address the router uses as long as it is > globally unique. Using an RFC 1918 address would be... unfortunate. ....even if it is within an AS? (on iBGP interfaces)? -thanks Alok _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 07:44:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08034 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:44:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnPF-0002aV-5g; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnP8-0002aC-In for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:43:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08015 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnP7-0000nS-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:43:53 -0500 Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([193.6.222.240] helo=mignon.ki.iif.hu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnP7-0000nC-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:43:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mignon.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D7F6E60; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:43:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from mignon.ki.iif.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mignon.ki.iif.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 77772-01; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:43:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by mignon.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 845106E53; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:43:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mignon.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F48A6E14; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:43:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:43:20 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: Alok Dube Cc: Tony Li , Tulip Rasputin , routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: bgp router id In-Reply-To: <042001c3b7e6$9fa99cc0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> Message-ID: <20031201134202.V77103@mignon.ki.iif.hu> References: <042001c3b7e6$9fa99cc0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Alok Dube wrote: > > > > > b) Since the router ID is used to resolve the opening of the connection, > > it does NOT matter which address the router uses as long as it is > > globally unique. Using an RFC 1918 address would be... unfortunate. > > ....even if it is within an AS? (on iBGP interfaces)? For IBGP the usage of loopback is recommended, due to possible alternate routes. Regards, Janos Mohacsi _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 07:44:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08049 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:44:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnPR-0002co-JU for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:44:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1CiD02010012 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:44:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnPF-0002aV-5g; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnP8-0002aC-In for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:43:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08015 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnP7-0000nS-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:43:53 -0500 Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([193.6.222.240] helo=mignon.ki.iif.hu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnP7-0000nC-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:43:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mignon.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D7F6E60; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:43:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from mignon.ki.iif.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mignon.ki.iif.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 77772-01; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:43:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by mignon.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 845106E53; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:43:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mignon.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F48A6E14; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:43:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:43:20 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: Alok Dube Cc: Tony Li , Tulip Rasputin , routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: bgp router id In-Reply-To: <042001c3b7e6$9fa99cc0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> Message-ID: <20031201134202.V77103@mignon.ki.iif.hu> References: <042001c3b7e6$9fa99cc0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Alok Dube wrote: > > > > > b) Since the router ID is used to resolve the opening of the connection, > > it does NOT matter which address the router uses as long as it is > > globally unique. Using an RFC 1918 address would be... unfortunate. > > ....even if it is within an AS? (on iBGP interfaces)? For IBGP the usage of loopback is recommended, due to possible alternate routes. Regards, Janos Mohacsi _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 07:56:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08703 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:56:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnaw-0003u8-4I for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:56:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Cu60q014983 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:56:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnas-0003sp-Du; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnaN-0003sL-PZ for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:55:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08686 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:55:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnaM-00013b-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:55:31 -0500 Received: from [64.106.140.220] (helo=mail.apara.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnaM-00013Y-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:55:30 -0500 Received: from mail.apara.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1D0Ed06590 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:30:14 +0530 Received: from ALOK ([203.124.140.97]) (authenticated) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1D0CM06583 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:30:13 +0530 Message-ID: <07ab01c3b80a$1a903cf0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> From: "Alok Dube" To: References: <042001c3b7e6$9fa99cc0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> <20031201134202.V77103@mignon.ki.iif.hu> Subject: Re: bgp router id Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:23:14 +0530 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am not asking about the "uniqueness" of router-id. frankly, loopback or no loopback, I dont quite understand how a node can have multiple identifiers if one wants to prevent routing loops in case of RRs..so i guess the router-id would be unique. my question was specific to the address/identifier given to the iBGP interface and/or to the router-id (even in case of RR)? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mohacsi Janos" To: "Alok Dube" Cc: "Tony Li" ; "Tulip Rasputin" ; Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: Re: bgp router id > > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Alok Dube wrote: > > > > > > > > > > b) Since the router ID is used to resolve the opening of the connection, > > > it does NOT matter which address the router uses as long as it is > > > globally unique. Using an RFC 1918 address would be... unfortunate. > > > > ....even if it is within an AS? (on iBGP interfaces)? > > For IBGP the usage of loopback is recommended, due to possible alternate > routes. Regards, > Janos Mohacsi > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 07:56:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08702 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:56:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnas-0003sp-Du; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnaN-0003sL-PZ for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:55:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08686 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:55:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnaM-00013b-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:55:31 -0500 Received: from [64.106.140.220] (helo=mail.apara.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnaM-00013Y-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:55:30 -0500 Received: from mail.apara.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1D0Ed06590 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:30:14 +0530 Received: from ALOK ([203.124.140.97]) (authenticated) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1D0CM06583 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:30:13 +0530 Message-ID: <07ab01c3b80a$1a903cf0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> From: "Alok Dube" To: References: <042001c3b7e6$9fa99cc0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> <20031201134202.V77103@mignon.ki.iif.hu> Subject: Re: bgp router id Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:23:14 +0530 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am not asking about the "uniqueness" of router-id. frankly, loopback or no loopback, I dont quite understand how a node can have multiple identifiers if one wants to prevent routing loops in case of RRs..so i guess the router-id would be unique. my question was specific to the address/identifier given to the iBGP interface and/or to the router-id (even in case of RR)? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mohacsi Janos" To: "Alok Dube" Cc: "Tony Li" ; "Tulip Rasputin" ; Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: Re: bgp router id > > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Alok Dube wrote: > > > > > > > > > > b) Since the router ID is used to resolve the opening of the connection, > > > it does NOT matter which address the router uses as long as it is > > > globally unique. Using an RFC 1918 address would be... unfortunate. > > > > ....even if it is within an AS? (on iBGP interfaces)? > > For IBGP the usage of loopback is recommended, due to possible alternate > routes. Regards, > Janos Mohacsi > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 08:47:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10087 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoOE-0007Ft-34; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoNt-0007FR-Lf for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:46:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10076 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:46:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoNs-0001nf-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:46:40 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org ([209.150.1.230]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoNr-0001nc-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:46:39 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1Dl5Og033539; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:47:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200312011347.hB1Dl5Og033539@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Alok Dube" cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: bgp router id In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:23:14 +0530." <07ab01c3b80a$1a903cf0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:05 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In message <07ab01c3b80a$1a903cf0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com>, "Alok Dube" writes: > I am not asking about the "uniqueness" of router-id. > frankly, loopback or no loopback, I dont quite understand how a node can > have multiple identifiers if one wants to prevent routing loops in case of > RRs..so i guess the router-id would be unique. > > my question was specific to the address/identifier given to the iBGP > interface and/or to the router-id (even in case of RR)? Unlike any other interface on the box, the loopback never goes down so if you have a TCP connection, it will never go down as long as at least one interface remains up and the router remains reachable. It is **strongly** recommended that the loopback interface be used for all IBGP. It was always convenient to use the same unique number (the IPV4 address of the loopback) for the BGP Identifier. For IPv6 we had to decouple the BGP Identifier from the TCP connection address. For IPv6 you should still use a loopback, but use some other 4 byte unique number for the BGP Identifier. A good choice would be the IPv4 address of the same loopback device seeing as IPv4 hasn't shown any signs of going away. In the hypothetical case where you don't have such a thing, make up a number. Curtis _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 08:47:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10102 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoOQ-0007IP-Il for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1DlE5f027968 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:47:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoOE-0007Ft-34; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoNt-0007FR-Lf for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:46:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10076 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:46:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoNs-0001nf-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:46:40 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org ([209.150.1.230]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoNr-0001nc-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:46:39 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1Dl5Og033539; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:47:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200312011347.hB1Dl5Og033539@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: "Alok Dube" cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: bgp router id In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:23:14 +0530." <07ab01c3b80a$1a903cf0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:05 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In message <07ab01c3b80a$1a903cf0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com>, "Alok Dube" writes: > I am not asking about the "uniqueness" of router-id. > frankly, loopback or no loopback, I dont quite understand how a node can > have multiple identifiers if one wants to prevent routing loops in case of > RRs..so i guess the router-id would be unique. > > my question was specific to the address/identifier given to the iBGP > interface and/or to the router-id (even in case of RR)? Unlike any other interface on the box, the loopback never goes down so if you have a TCP connection, it will never go down as long as at least one interface remains up and the router remains reachable. It is **strongly** recommended that the loopback interface be used for all IBGP. It was always convenient to use the same unique number (the IPV4 address of the loopback) for the BGP Identifier. For IPv6 we had to decouple the BGP Identifier from the TCP connection address. For IPv6 you should still use a loopback, but use some other 4 byte unique number for the BGP Identifier. A good choice would be the IPv4 address of the same loopback device seeing as IPv4 hasn't shown any signs of going away. In the hypothetical case where you don't have such a thing, make up a number. Curtis _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 08:58:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10518 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:58:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoYr-0008O1-Q3; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoY2-0008Jk-Rx for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:57:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10487 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoY1-0001wR-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:57:09 -0500 Received: from [64.106.140.220] (helo=mail.apara.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoY1-0001wO-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:57:09 -0500 Received: from mail.apara.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1E1td08837 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:31:55 +0530 Received: from ALOK ([203.124.140.97]) (authenticated) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1E1pM08831 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:31:52 +0530 Message-ID: <088d01c3b812$b75c2fa0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> From: "Alok Dube" To: References: <200312011347.hB1Dl5Og033539@workhorse.fictitious.org> Subject: Re: bgp router id Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:24:50 +0530 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, my question was why cant the IP/and or router-id be an RFC 1918 IP address for peers which are *internal to the AS*...like RRs or iBGP speakers? why is it *unfortunate*?? i understand the bit about Loopback never being down, or the case where one can have multiple IP ends for the sessions to the same peer with the same Router-id etc. i also understand that there is a field called Originator id in the RR RFC (which may not have much relevance if one was to look at poison reverse or cases where RRs would *not* send back routes learnt from RR back to the same RR)..hence i feel that the loop may never be formed in such cases (full mesh among RRs+all RRs are nonclients hence no route reflection among routes learnt between RRs + poision reverse) my question was : why is using a RFC 1918 address as the address that the router uses for setting up the BGP peering *unfortunate* if the peers are in the same AS and do not interact with aany external entity? -thanks Alok ----- Original Message ----- From: "Curtis Villamizar" To: "Alok Dube" Cc: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:17 PM Subject: Re: bgp router id > > In message <07ab01c3b80a$1a903cf0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com>, "Alok Dube" writes: > > I am not asking about the "uniqueness" of router-id. > > frankly, loopback or no loopback, I dont quite understand how a node can > > have multiple identifiers if one wants to prevent routing loops in case of > > RRs..so i guess the router-id would be unique. > > > > my question was specific to the address/identifier given to the iBGP > > interface and/or to the router-id (even in case of RR)? > > > Unlike any other interface on the box, the loopback never goes down so > if you have a TCP connection, it will never go down as long as at > least one interface remains up and the router remains reachable. It > is **strongly** recommended that the loopback interface be used for > all IBGP. It was always convenient to use the same unique number (the > IPV4 address of the loopback) for the BGP Identifier. _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 08:58:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10517 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:58:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoYu-0008PK-Hy for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:58:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Dw4q6032289 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:58:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoYr-0008O1-Q3; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoY2-0008Jk-Rx for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:57:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10487 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoY1-0001wR-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:57:09 -0500 Received: from [64.106.140.220] (helo=mail.apara.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoY1-0001wO-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:57:09 -0500 Received: from mail.apara.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1E1td08837 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:31:55 +0530 Received: from ALOK ([203.124.140.97]) (authenticated) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1E1pM08831 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:31:52 +0530 Message-ID: <088d01c3b812$b75c2fa0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> From: "Alok Dube" To: References: <200312011347.hB1Dl5Og033539@workhorse.fictitious.org> Subject: Re: bgp router id Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:24:50 +0530 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, my question was why cant the IP/and or router-id be an RFC 1918 IP address for peers which are *internal to the AS*...like RRs or iBGP speakers? why is it *unfortunate*?? i understand the bit about Loopback never being down, or the case where one can have multiple IP ends for the sessions to the same peer with the same Router-id etc. i also understand that there is a field called Originator id in the RR RFC (which may not have much relevance if one was to look at poison reverse or cases where RRs would *not* send back routes learnt from RR back to the same RR)..hence i feel that the loop may never be formed in such cases (full mesh among RRs+all RRs are nonclients hence no route reflection among routes learnt between RRs + poision reverse) my question was : why is using a RFC 1918 address as the address that the router uses for setting up the BGP peering *unfortunate* if the peers are in the same AS and do not interact with aany external entity? -thanks Alok ----- Original Message ----- From: "Curtis Villamizar" To: "Alok Dube" Cc: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:17 PM Subject: Re: bgp router id > > In message <07ab01c3b80a$1a903cf0$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com>, "Alok Dube" writes: > > I am not asking about the "uniqueness" of router-id. > > frankly, loopback or no loopback, I dont quite understand how a node can > > have multiple identifiers if one wants to prevent routing loops in case of > > RRs..so i guess the router-id would be unique. > > > > my question was specific to the address/identifier given to the iBGP > > interface and/or to the router-id (even in case of RR)? > > > Unlike any other interface on the box, the loopback never goes down so > if you have a TCP connection, it will never go down as long as at > least one interface remains up and the router remains reachable. It > is **strongly** recommended that the loopback interface be used for > all IBGP. It was always convenient to use the same unique number (the > IPV4 address of the loopback) for the BGP Identifier. _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 11:42:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17074 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:42:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQr7l-0000j0-La for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:42:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1GgD2F002706 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:42:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQr7Z-0000fA-3g; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJdLN-0000yv-0B for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:34:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14587; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJdLK-0007d4-00; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:34:22 -0500 Received: from mail.ibsncentral.com ([69.44.125.178] helo=OMEGA.denver.ibsncentral.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJdLK-0007cC-00; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:34:22 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.175] ([192.168.0.175]) by OMEGA.denver.ibsncentral.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:33:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <8D260779A766FB4A9C1739A476F84FA401546EF7@daebe009.NOE.Nokia.com> References: <8D260779A766FB4A9C1739A476F84FA401546EF7@daebe009.NOE.Nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9248241A-1475-11D8-93FA-000A95EA00C0@ibsncentral.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , From: PC Drew Subject: Re: [VRRP] CARP.. Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:33:40 -0700 To: Mukesh.Gupta@nokia.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2003 18:33:40.0956 (UTC) FILETIME=[544579C0:01C3A882] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The man page is located here: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi? query=carp&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format= html The original post to the mailing list is here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=106642790513590&w=2 I would recommend contacting the following people for more information: Ryan McBride: mcbride@openbsd.org Theo de Raadt: deraadt@openbsd.org On Nov 11, 2003, at 10:33 AM, Mukesh.Gupta@nokia.com wrote: > Folks, > > Do we have anyone in the WG or routing-discussion list who > knows about CARP (Common Address Redundancy Protocol) and > can explain it to the WG (or just the chairs in person) in > the WG meeting on Thursday. > > Please send me a mail asap. Your help will be highly > appreciated. > > Regards > Mukesh > > _______________________________________________ > vrrp mailing list > vrrp@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp > -- PC Drew Manager, Dominet IBSN 1600 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-984-4727 x107 Cell: 720-841-4543 Fax: 303-984-4730 Email: drewpc@ibsncentral.com _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 12:29:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17069 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:42:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQr7Z-0000fA-3g; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AJdLN-0000yv-0B for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:34:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14587; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJdLK-0007d4-00; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:34:22 -0500 Received: from mail.ibsncentral.com ([69.44.125.178] helo=OMEGA.denver.ibsncentral.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AJdLK-0007cC-00; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:34:22 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.175] ([192.168.0.175]) by OMEGA.denver.ibsncentral.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:33:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <8D260779A766FB4A9C1739A476F84FA401546EF7@daebe009.NOE.Nokia.com> References: <8D260779A766FB4A9C1739A476F84FA401546EF7@daebe009.NOE.Nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9248241A-1475-11D8-93FA-000A95EA00C0@ibsncentral.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , From: PC Drew Subject: Re: [VRRP] CARP.. Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:33:40 -0700 To: Mukesh.Gupta@nokia.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2003 18:33:40.0956 (UTC) FILETIME=[544579C0:01C3A882] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The man page is located here: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi? query=carp&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format= html The original post to the mailing list is here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=106642790513590&w=2 I would recommend contacting the following people for more information: Ryan McBride: mcbride@openbsd.org Theo de Raadt: deraadt@openbsd.org On Nov 11, 2003, at 10:33 AM, Mukesh.Gupta@nokia.com wrote: > Folks, > > Do we have anyone in the WG or routing-discussion list who > knows about CARP (Common Address Redundancy Protocol) and > can explain it to the WG (or just the chairs in person) in > the WG meeting on Thursday. > > Please send me a mail asap. Your help will be highly > appreciated. > > Regards > Mukesh > > _______________________________________________ > vrrp mailing list > vrrp@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp > -- PC Drew Manager, Dominet IBSN 1600 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-984-4727 x107 Cell: 720-841-4543 Fax: 303-984-4730 Email: drewpc@ibsncentral.com _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 05:44:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11472 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:44:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR80h-0000Qd-Fk; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:44:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR80Y-0000PQ-5r for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:43:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11396 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR80U-0004nF-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:43:50 -0500 Received: from web60702.mail.yahoo.com ([216.109.117.225]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR80T-0004mj-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:43:49 -0500 Message-ID: <20031202104319.71907.qmail@web60702.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [165.213.0.8] by web60702.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:43:19 EST Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:43:19 -0500 (EST) From: Tulip Rasputin Subject: Re: bgp router id To: routing-discussion@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Alok, My original question has been unanswered but I will attempt to answer yours. > my question was why cant the IP/and or router-id be an RFC 1918 IP address > for peers which are *internal to the AS*...like RRs or iBGP speakers? > > why is it *unfortunate*?? Suppose one of your IBGP peer aggregates some routes. It will put its Router ID in the Aggregator field and will advertise this to other peers. Now, for this case, lets assume it uses an RFC 1918 IP address. There is a probability that when this path is leaked out of your own AS, and received by some other IBGP peer (which again may use RFC 1918 addresses) of some other AS, things may not go as expected. Its thus always better to use non RFC 1918 IP addresses for your BGP speakers. > I also understand that there is a field called Originator id in the RR RFC > (which may not have much relevance if one was to look at poison reverse or > cases where RRs would *not* send back routes learnt from RR back to the same Poison reverse only works for directly connected peers/routers. By "direct" I don't mean a "direct" physical connection, but rather a "direct" logical connection. We need the concept of Originator ID in BGP because the RR can receive the path it originally originated, from a peer, after it has traversed mulitple hops, and not necessarily from a router to which it had advertised this before! Simply put, Poison reverse will not help in BGP. The BGP experts may be able to provide a clearer picture. Regards, Rasputin ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 05:44:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11482 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:44:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR816-0000X7-Eg for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:44:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2AiSsr001972 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:44:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR80h-0000Qd-Fk; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:44:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR80Y-0000PQ-5r for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:43:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11396 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR80U-0004nF-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:43:50 -0500 Received: from web60702.mail.yahoo.com ([216.109.117.225]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR80T-0004mj-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:43:49 -0500 Message-ID: <20031202104319.71907.qmail@web60702.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [165.213.0.8] by web60702.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:43:19 EST Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:43:19 -0500 (EST) From: Tulip Rasputin Subject: Re: bgp router id To: routing-discussion@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Alok, My original question has been unanswered but I will attempt to answer yours. > my question was why cant the IP/and or router-id be an RFC 1918 IP address > for peers which are *internal to the AS*...like RRs or iBGP speakers? > > why is it *unfortunate*?? Suppose one of your IBGP peer aggregates some routes. It will put its Router ID in the Aggregator field and will advertise this to other peers. Now, for this case, lets assume it uses an RFC 1918 IP address. There is a probability that when this path is leaked out of your own AS, and received by some other IBGP peer (which again may use RFC 1918 addresses) of some other AS, things may not go as expected. Its thus always better to use non RFC 1918 IP addresses for your BGP speakers. > I also understand that there is a field called Originator id in the RR RFC > (which may not have much relevance if one was to look at poison reverse or > cases where RRs would *not* send back routes learnt from RR back to the same Poison reverse only works for directly connected peers/routers. By "direct" I don't mean a "direct" physical connection, but rather a "direct" logical connection. We need the concept of Originator ID in BGP because the RR can receive the path it originally originated, from a peer, after it has traversed mulitple hops, and not necessarily from a router to which it had advertised this before! Simply put, Poison reverse will not help in BGP. The BGP experts may be able to provide a clearer picture. Regards, Rasputin ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 06:56:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13173 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:56:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR98M-0003Ft-ML; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR97j-0003Ej-4D for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:55:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13144 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR97e-0005Tp-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:55:18 -0500 Received: from [64.106.140.220] (helo=mail.apara.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR97e-0005Tm-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:55:18 -0500 Received: from mail.apara.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB2C0Gd18915 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:30:16 +0530 Received: from ALOK ([203.124.140.97]) (authenticated) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB2Bx3M18824 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:29:18 +0530 Message-ID: <03e301c3b8ca$d7804c40$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> From: "Alok Dube" To: References: <20031202104319.71907.qmail@web60702.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: bgp router id Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:20:07 +0530 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, thanks for the clarification, > Suppose one of your IBGP peer aggregates some routes. It will put its Router ID in the Aggregator > field and will advertise this to other peers. Now, for this case, lets assume it uses an RFC 1918 > IP address. There is a probability that when this path is leaked out of your own AS, and received > by some other IBGP peer (which again may use RFC 1918 addresses) of some other AS, things may not > go as expected. Its thus always better to use non RFC 1918 IP addresses for your BGP speakers. this holds true when one does not aggregate at the eBGP peering node but rather at a node in the AS only (a pure iBGP speaker performs the aggregation etc). The other point ofcourse being, why does one need to know the aggregation point? > > > I also understand that there is a field called Originator id in the RR RFC > > (which may not have much relevance if one was to look at poison reverse or > > cases where RRs would *not* send back routes learnt from RR back to the same > > Poison reverse only works for directly connected peers/routers. By "direct" I don't mean a > "direct" physical connection, but rather a "direct" logical connection. > > We need the concept of Originator ID in BGP because the RR can receive the path it originally > originated, from a peer, after it has traversed mulitple hops, and not necessarily from a router > to which it had advertised this before! cluster_id? i agree that having a unique router-id would lead to faster convergence (still the router-id can be unique in the AS if the speakers are purely iBGP/RRs and dont run eBGP). but iBGP per se doesnt pass on what what it learns from any other iBGP peer. so if its purely RRs and each iBGP node talks to only 1 RR cluster then: 1. the RRs are not clients of each other so they dont learn from neighbouring RRs what they send to them (iBGP peering) 2. if an RR was to send out routes it has learnt from another RR, cluster_id/cluster_list would suffice to say that there was a loop. ofcourse this breaks when an iBGP peer talks to multiple RRs (a client of multiple RRs) thanks again, -rgds Alok _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 06:56:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13175 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:56:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR98b-0003Gp-Ok for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:56:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2BuHVV012571 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:56:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR98M-0003Ft-ML; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR97j-0003Ej-4D for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:55:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13144 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR97e-0005Tp-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:55:18 -0500 Received: from [64.106.140.220] (helo=mail.apara.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR97e-0005Tm-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:55:18 -0500 Received: from mail.apara.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB2C0Gd18915 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:30:16 +0530 Received: from ALOK ([203.124.140.97]) (authenticated) by mail.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB2Bx3M18824 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:29:18 +0530 Message-ID: <03e301c3b8ca$d7804c40$fb01a8c0@aparabgl.com> From: "Alok Dube" To: References: <20031202104319.71907.qmail@web60702.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: bgp router id Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:20:07 +0530 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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, thanks for the clarification, > Suppose one of your IBGP peer aggregates some routes. It will put its Router ID in the Aggregator > field and will advertise this to other peers. Now, for this case, lets assume it uses an RFC 1918 > IP address. There is a probability that when this path is leaked out of your own AS, and received > by some other IBGP peer (which again may use RFC 1918 addresses) of some other AS, things may not > go as expected. Its thus always better to use non RFC 1918 IP addresses for your BGP speakers. this holds true when one does not aggregate at the eBGP peering node but rather at a node in the AS only (a pure iBGP speaker performs the aggregation etc). The other point ofcourse being, why does one need to know the aggregation point? > > > I also understand that there is a field called Originator id in the RR RFC > > (which may not have much relevance if one was to look at poison reverse or > > cases where RRs would *not* send back routes learnt from RR back to the same > > Poison reverse only works for directly connected peers/routers. By "direct" I don't mean a > "direct" physical connection, but rather a "direct" logical connection. > > We need the concept of Originator ID in BGP because the RR can receive the path it originally > originated, from a peer, after it has traversed mulitple hops, and not necessarily from a router > to which it had advertised this before! cluster_id? i agree that having a unique router-id would lead to faster convergence (still the router-id can be unique in the AS if the speakers are purely iBGP/RRs and dont run eBGP). but iBGP per se doesnt pass on what what it learns from any other iBGP peer. so if its purely RRs and each iBGP node talks to only 1 RR cluster then: 1. the RRs are not clients of each other so they dont learn from neighbouring RRs what they send to them (iBGP peering) 2. if an RR was to send out routes it has learnt from another RR, cluster_id/cluster_list would suffice to say that there was a loop. ofcourse this breaks when an iBGP peer talks to multiple RRs (a client of multiple RRs) thanks again, -rgds Alok _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 01:24:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11677 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:24:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVm9b-0002HP-Ai for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:24:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBF6ORv7008761 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:24:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVm9B-0002GE-Ou; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsXx-00073s-HO for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20494 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:13:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsXv-00068A-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:19 -0500 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsXu-00067X-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:18 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14AE22D48C8 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:40 -0500 (EST) 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 92326-01-42 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com (aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com [65.247.36.233]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A93C2D4801 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:38 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3B836.B3ED7EF1" Subject: RE: bgp router id Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:38 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: yes Thread-Topic: bgp router id Thread-Index: AcO0h3pJl12UtMVyT06mXpxDVRiRmAAF6NCwAOWVHNA= From: "Susan Hares" To: "Tony Li" , "Tulip Rasputin" , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B836.B3ED7EF1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tony and all:=20 Enke Chen proposed no restrictions on router ID in [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-03.txt]. I've attached an earlier version for anyone who wants the reasoning. =20 This Draft will be processed after the base specification. So, it would be unfortunate to use RFC 1918. =20 Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: Tony Li [mailto:Tony.Li@procket.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:31 PM To: Tulip Rasputin; routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: RE: bgp router id a) Since this is a BGP question, it truly belongs on the IDR list. b) Since the router ID is used to resolve the opening of the connection, it does NOT matter which address the router uses as long as it is globally unique. Using an RFC 1918 address would be... unfortunate. Tony | -----Original Message----- | From: Tulip Rasputin [mailto:tulip_rasputin@yahoo.ca]=20 | Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 5:23 PM | To: routing-discussion@ietf.org | Subject: bgp router id | =20 | =20 | Hi, | =20 | I noticed a BGP behaviour and just wanted to confirm if it=20 | is indeed an anormal thing to happen. I | am not using a loopback IP address nor have I configured a=20 | BGP router ID. It thus picks up the | highest IP address available as its Router ID for all the=20 | BGP session that it establishes. Now | when this interface goes down it picks up the next highest=20 | IP address that is available and uses | it for all subsequent peerings. | =20 | Isnt this odd? A single router using 2 different router IDs=20 | with two different peers? | =20 | I know this is wrong. Either this router should continue=20 | with the same old router ID (even though | the interface it not there .. but that hardly matters!) that=20 | it had or it should select a new | router ID, break off connections with all the previous peers=20 | (very expensive!) and establish new | connections with peers using this new Router ID. | =20 | I think it should be the former one. And when it finds that=20 | it has no more BGP speakers in FSM | state > OpenConfirm it can update use the new Router ID for=20 | all subsequent peerings. | =20 | WOuld like to hear your opinion, | =20 | Tulip | =20 | =20 | =20 | _____________________________________________________________ | _________=20 | Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca | =20 | _______________________________________________ | routing-discussion mailing list | routing-discussion@ietf.org | https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion | =20 _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B836.B3ED7EF1 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-chen-bgp-identifier-01.txt" Content-Description: draft-chen-bgp-identifier-01.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-chen-bgp-identifier-01.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQoNCg0KTmV0d29yayBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICBFbmtlIENoZW4NCkludGVybmV0IERyYWZ0ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBKZW5ueSBZdWFuDQpFeHBpcmF0aW9uIERhdGU6IEp1 bHkgMjAwMiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgUmVkYmFjayBOZXR3b3Jrcw0KDQoN CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBBUy13aWRlIFVuaXF1ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBmb3IgQkdQLTQN Cg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWNoZW4tYmdwLWlkZW50aWZpZXItMDEudHh0 DQoNCg0KMS4gU3RhdHVzIG9mIHRoaXMgTWVtbw0KDQogICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIGFuIElu dGVybmV0LURyYWZ0IGFuZCBpcyBpbiBmdWxsIGNvbmZvcm1hbmNlIHdpdGgNCiAgIGFsbCBwcm92 aXNpb25zIG9mIFNlY3Rpb24gMTAgb2YgUkZDMjAyNi4NCg0KICAgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRzIGFy ZSB3b3JraW5nIGRvY3VtZW50cyBvZiB0aGUgSW50ZXJuZXQgRW5naW5lZXJpbmcNCiAgIFRhc2sg Rm9yY2UgKElFVEYpLCBpdHMgYXJlYXMsIGFuZCBpdHMgd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMuICBOb3RlIHRo YXQNCiAgIG90aGVyIGdyb3VwcyBtYXkgYWxzbyBkaXN0cmlidXRlIHdvcmtpbmcgZG9jdW1lbnRz IGFzIEludGVybmV0LQ0KICAgRHJhZnRzLg0KDQogICBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdHMgYXJlIGRyYWZ0 IGRvY3VtZW50cyB2YWxpZCBmb3IgYSBtYXhpbXVtIG9mIHNpeCBtb250aHMNCiAgIGFuZCBtYXkg YmUgdXBkYXRlZCwgcmVwbGFjZWQsIG9yIG9ic29sZXRlZCBieSBvdGhlciBkb2N1bWVudHMgYXQg YW55DQogICB0aW1lLiAgSXQgaXMgaW5hcHByb3ByaWF0ZSB0byB1c2UgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRz IGFzIHJlZmVyZW5jZQ0KICAgbWF0ZXJpYWwgb3IgdG8gY2l0ZSB0aGVtIG90aGVyIHRoYW4gYXMg YGB3b3JrIGluIHByb2dyZXNzLicnDQoNCiAgIFRoZSBsaXN0IG9mIGN1cnJlbnQgSW50ZXJuZXQt RHJhZnRzIGNhbiBiZSBhY2Nlc3NlZCBhdA0KICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pZXRmLzFp ZC1hYnN0cmFjdHMudHh0DQoNCiAgIFRoZSBsaXN0IG9mIEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0IFNoYWRvdyBE aXJlY3RvcmllcyBjYW4gYmUgYWNjZXNzZWQgYXQNCiAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvc2hh ZG93Lmh0bWwuDQoNCg0KMi4gQWJzdHJhY3QNCg0KICAgVG8gYWNjb21tb2RhdGUgc2l0dWF0aW9u cyB3aGVyZSB0aGUgY3VycmVudCByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZm9yIHRoZSBCR1ANCiAgIElkZW50aWZp ZXIgYXJlIG5vdCBtZXQsIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgcmVsYXhlcyB0aGUgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBvZiB0 aGUNCiAgIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyIHRvIGJlIGEgNC1vY3RldCB1bnNpZ25lZCwgbm9uLXplcm8g aW50ZWdlciwgYW5kDQogICByZWxheGVzIHRoZSAidW5pcXVlbmVzcyIgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgc28g dGhhdCBvbmx5IEFTLXdpZGUgdW5pcXVlbmVzcw0KICAgb2YgdGhlIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVycyBp cyByZXF1aXJlZC4gVGhlc2UgcmV2aXNpb25zIHRvIHRoZSBiYXNlIEJHUA0KICAgc3BlY2lmaWNh dGlvbiBkb2VzIG5vdCBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgYW55IGJhY2t3YXJkIGNvbXBhdGliaWxpdHkgaXNzdWUu DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkNoZW4gJiBZdWFuICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBbUGFnZSAxXQ0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkludGVybmV0 IERyYWZ0ICAgICAgZHJhZnQtY2hlbi1iZ3AtaWRlbnRpZmllci0wMS50eHQgICAgICAgIEphbnVh cnkgMjAwMg0KDQoNCjMuIEludHJvZHVjdGlvbg0KDQogICBDdXJyZW50bHkgdGhlIEJHUCBJZGVu dGlmaWVyIG9mIGEgQkdQIHNwZWFrZXIgaXMgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGFzIGEgdmFsaWQNCiAgIElQdjQg aG9zdCBhZGRyZXNzIGFzc2lnbmVkIHRvIHRoZSBCR1Agc3BlYWtlciBbQkdQLTRdLiAgSW4gYWRk aXRpb24sDQogICB0aGUgZGVwbG95ZWQgQkdQIGNvZGUgcmVxdWlyZXMgdGhhdCB0d28gQkdQIHNw ZWFrZXJzIGJlIG9mIGRpc3RpbmN0DQogICBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllcnMgaW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gZXN0 YWJsaXNoIGEgQkdQIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24uDQoNCiAgIFRvIGFjY29tbW9kYXRlIHNpdHVhdGlvbnMg d2hlcmUgdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGZvciB0aGUgQkdQDQogICBJZGVudGlmaWVy IGFyZSBub3QgbWV0LCB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHJlbGF4ZXMgdGhlIGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgdGhl DQogICBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciB0byBiZSBhIDQtb2N0ZXQgdW5zaWduZWQsIG5vbi16ZXJvIGlu dGVnZXIsIGFuZA0KICAgcmVsYXhlcyB0aGUgInVuaXF1ZW5lc3MiIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IHNvIHRo YXQgb25seSBBUy13aWRlIHVuaXF1ZW5lc3MNCiAgIG9mIHRoZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllcnMgaXMg cmVxdWlyZWQuIFRoZXNlIHJldmlzaW9ucyB0byB0aGUgYmFzZSBCR1ANCiAgIHNwZWNpZmljYXRp b24gZG9lcyBub3QgaW50cm9kdWNlIGFueSBiYWNrd2FyZCBjb21wYXRpYmlsaXR5IGlzc3VlLg0K DQoNCjQuIFByb3RvY29sIFJldmlzaW9ucw0KDQogICBUaGUgcmV2aXNpb25zIHRvIHRoZSBiYXNl IEJHUCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIFtCR1AtNF0gaW5jbHVkZSB0aGUNCiAgIGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2Yg dGhlIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyIGFuZCBwcm9jZWR1cmVzIGZvciBhIEJHUCBzcGVha2VyDQogICB0 aGF0IHN1cHBvcnRzIHRoZSBBUy13aWRlIFVuaXF1ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllci4NCg0KDQo0LjEu IERlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyDQoNCiAgIEZvciBhIEJHUCBzcGVha2Vy IHRoYXQgc3VwcG9ydHMgdGhlIEFTLXdpZGUgVW5pcXVlIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyLA0KICAgdGhl IEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyIGlzIHNwZWNpZmllZCBhcyB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nOg0KDQogICAgIFRo ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBpcyBhIDQtb2N0ZXQgdW5zaWduZWQsIG5vbi16ZXJvIGludGVnZXIg dGhhdA0KICAgICBzaG91bGQgYmUgdW5pcXVlIHdpdGhpbiBhbiBBUy4gVGhlIHZhbHVlIG9mIHRo ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBmb3INCiAgICAgYSBCR1Agc3BlYWtlciBpcyBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIG9u IHN0YXJ0dXAgYW5kIGlzIHRoZSBzYW1lIGZvciBldmVyeQ0KICAgICBsb2NhbCBpbnRlcmZhY2Ug YW5kIGV2ZXJ5IEJHUCBwZWVyLg0KDQoNCjQuMi4gT3BlbiBNZXNzYWdlIEVycm9yIEhhbmRsaW5n DQoNCiAgIEZvciBhIEJHUCBzcGVha2VyIHRoYXQgc3VwcG9ydHMgdGhlIEFTLXdpZGUgVW5pcXVl IEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyLA0KICAgdGhlIE9QRU4gbWVzc2FnZSBlcnJvciBoYW5kbGluZyByZWxh dGVkIHRvIHRoZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBpcw0KICAgbW9kaWZpZWQgYXMgZm9sbG93czoNCg0K ICAgICBJZiB0aGUgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXIgZmllbGQgb2YgdGhlIE9QRU4gbWVzc2FnZSBpcyB6 ZXJvLCBvciBpZg0KICAgICBpdCBpcyB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyB0aGUgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXIgb2Yg dGhlIGxvY2FsIEJHUCBzcGVha2VyDQogICAgIGFuZCB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZSBpcyBmcm9tIGFuIGlu dGVybmFsIHBlZXIsIHRoZW4gdGhlIEVycm9yIFN1YmNvZGUNCiAgICAgaXMgc2V0IHRvICJCYWQg QkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXIiLg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkNoZW4gJiBZdWFuICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBbUGFnZSAyXQ0KDQoNCg0K DQoNCkludGVybmV0IERyYWZ0ICAgICAgZHJhZnQtY2hlbi1iZ3AtaWRlbnRpZmllci0wMS50eHQg ICAgICAgIEphbnVhcnkgMjAwMg0KDQoNCjQuMy4gQ29ubmVjdGlvbiBDb2xsaXNpb24gUmVzb2x1 dGlvbg0KDQogICBGb3IgYSBCR1Agc3BlYWtlciB0aGF0IHN1cHBvcnRzIHRoZSBBUy13aWRlIFVu aXF1ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciwNCiAgIHRoZSBwcm9jZWR1cmVzIGZvciBjb25uZWN0aW9uIGNv bGxpc2lvbiByZXNvbHV0aW9uIGFyZSBleHRlbmRlZCBhcw0KICAgZm9sbG93cyB0byBkZWFsIHdp dGggdGhlIGNhc2UgaW4gd2hpY2ggdGhlIHR3byBCR1Agc3BlYWtlcnMgc2hhcmUgdGhlDQogICBz YW1lIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyICh0aHVzIGl0IGlzIG9ubHkgYXBwbGljYWJsZSB0byBhbiBleHRl cm5hbCBwZWVyKToNCg0KICAgICBJZiB0aGUgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXJzIG9mIHRoZSBwZWVycyBp bnZvbHZlZCBpbiB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbg0KICAgICBjb2xsaXNpb24gYXJlIGlkZW50aWNhbCwg dGhlbiB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbiBpbml0aWF0ZWQgYnkgdGhlIEJHUA0KICAgICBzcGVha2VyIHdp dGggdGhlIGxhcmdlciBBUyBudW1iZXIgaXMgcHJlc2VydmVkLg0KDQogICBUaGlzIGV4dGVuc2lv biBjb3ZlcnMgY2FzZXMgaW4gd2hpY2ggdGhlIGZvdXItb2N0ZXQgQVMgbnVtYmVycyBhcmUNCiAg IGludm9sdmVkIFtCR1AtNEJZVEUtQVNdLg0KDQoNCjUuIFJlbWFya3MNCg0KICAgSXQgaXMgbm90 ZWQgdGhhdCBhIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyIGFsbG9jYXRlZCBiYXNlZCBvbiBbQkdQLTRdIGZpdHMg dGhlDQogICByZXZpc2VkIGRlZmluaXRpb24uDQoNCiAgIEluIGNhc2Ugb2YgQkdQIENvbmZlZGVy YXRpb24sIHRoZSB3aG9sZSBjb25mZWRlcmF0aW9uIGlzIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQNCiAgIGFzIG9uZSBB UyBmb3IgdGhlIHB1cnBvc2Ugb2Ygc3VwcG9ydGluZyB0aGUgQVMtd2lkZSBVbmlxdWUgQkdQDQog ICBJZGVudGlmaWVyLg0KDQogICBBIEJHUCBzcGVha2VyIHRoYXQgc3VwcG9ydHMgdGhlIEFTLXdp ZGUgVW5pcXVlIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyIGNhbiBub3QNCiAgIHNoYXJlIGEgQkdQIElkZW50aWZp ZXIgd2l0aCBpdHMgZXh0ZXJuYWwgbmVpZ2hib3IgdW50aWwgdGhlIHJlbW90ZQ0KICAgQkdQIHNw ZWFrZXIgaXMgdXBncmFkZWQgd2l0aCBzb2Z0d2FyZSB0aGF0IHN1cHBvcnRzIHRoZSBwcm9wb3Nl ZA0KICAgcmV2aXNpb25zLg0KDQogICBJbiBhZGRpdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgT1BFTiBtZXNzYWdlLCB0 aGUgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXIgaXMgY3VycmVudGx5IGFsc28NCiAgIHVzZWQgaW4gdGhlIGZvbGxv d2luZyBhcmVhczoNCg0KICAgICBvIEluIHRoZSBBR0dSRUFHVE9SIGF0dHJpYnV0ZSBvZiBhIHJv dXRlIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBjb21iaW5hdGlvbiBvZg0KICAgICAgIGEgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXIgYW5k IGFuIEFTIG51bWJlciB1bmlxdWVseSBpZGVudGlmaWVzIHRoZSBCR1ANCiAgICAgICBzcGVha2Vy IHRoYXQgcGVyZm9ybXMgdGhlIHJvdXRlIGFnZ3JlZ2F0aW9uLg0KDQogICAgIG8gSW4gdGhlIFJv dXRlIFJlZmxlY3Rpb24gKGluIGxpZXUgb2YgdGhlIENsdXN0ZXItaWQpIHdpdGhpbiBhbg0KICAg ICAgIEFTLCB3aGVyZSBvbmx5IHRoZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBvZiBhbiBpbnRlcm5hbCBuZWln aGJvciBtYXkNCiAgICAgICBiZSBwcm9wYWdhdGVkIGluIHRoZSByb3V0ZSByZWZsZWN0aW9uIHJl bGF0ZWQgYXR0cmlidXRlcy4NCg0KICAgICBvIEluIHRoZSByb3V0ZSBzZWxlY3Rpb24sIHdoZXJl IHRoZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBpcyBub3QgdXNlZA0KICAgICAgIGluIGNvbXBhcmluZyBhIHJv dXRlIGZyb20gYW4gaW50ZXJuYWwgbmVpZ2hib3IgYW5kIGEgcm91dGUgZnJvbQ0KICAgICAgIGFu IGV4dGVybmFsIG5laWdoYm9yLiBJbiBhZGRpdGlvbiwgcm91dGVzIGZyb20gQkdQIHNwZWFrZXJz IHdpdGgNCiAgICAgICBpZGVudGljYWwgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXJzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBkZWFsdCB3 aXRoIChlLmcuLCBwYXJhbGxlbA0KICAgICAgIEJHUCBzZXNzaW9ucyBiZXR3ZWVuIHR3byBCR1Ag c3BlYWtlcnMpLg0KDQogICBUaGVyZWZvcmUgaXQgaXMgY29uY2x1ZGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIHJldmlz aW9ucyBwcm9wb3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzDQogICBkb2N1bWVudCBkbyBub3QgaW50cm9kdWNlIGFueSBi YWNrd2FyZCBjb21wYXRpYmlsaXR5IGlzc3VlIHdpdGggdGhlDQoNCg0KDQpDaGVuICYgWXVhbiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgW1BhZ2Ug M10NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpJbnRlcm5ldCBEcmFmdCAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWNoZW4tYmdwLWlkZW50aWZp ZXItMDEudHh0ICAgICAgICBKYW51YXJ5IDIwMDINCg0KDQogICBjdXJyZW50IHVzYWdlIG9mIHRo ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllci4NCg0KDQo2LiBTZWN1cml0eSBDb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucw0KDQogICBU aGlzIGV4dGVuc2lvbiB0byBCR1AgZG9lcyBub3QgY2hhbmdlIHRoZSB1bmRlcmx5aW5nIHNlY3Vy aXR5IGlzc3Vlcy4NCg0KDQo3LiBBY2tub3dsZWRnbWVudHMNCg0KICAgW1RCRF0NCg0KDQo4LiBS ZWZlcmVuY2VzDQoNCiAgIFtCR1AtNF0gWS4gUmVraHRlciwgYW5kIFQuIExpLCAiQSBCb3JkZXIg R2F0ZXdheSBQcm90b2NvbCA0IChCR1AtNCkiLA0KICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pZHItYmdwNC0xNi50 eHQsIE5vdmVtYmVyIDIwMDEuDQoNCiAgIFtCR1AtNEJZVEUtQVNdIFEuIFZvaHJhLCBFLiBDaGVu LCAiQkdQIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIGZvdXItb2N0ZXQgQVMNCiAgIG51bWJlciBzcGFjZSIsIFdvcmsg aW4gUHJvZ3Jlc3MsIDxkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlkci1hczRieXRlcy0wNC50eHQ+LA0KICAgU2VwdGVt YmVyIDIwMDEuDQoNCg0KOS4gQXV0aG9yIEluZm9ybWF0aW9uDQoNCiAgIEVua2UgQ2hlbg0KICAg UmVkYmFjayBOZXR3b3JrcywgSW5jLg0KICAgMzUwIEhvbGdlciBXYXkNCiAgIFNhbiBKb3NlLCBD QSA5NTEzNA0KICAgZS1tYWlsOiBlbmtlQHJlZGJhY2suY29tDQoNCiAgIEplbm55IFl1YW4NCiAg IFJlZGJhY2sgTmV0d29ya3MsIEluYy4NCiAgIDM1MCBIb2xnZXIgV2F5DQogICBTYW4gSm9zZSwg Q0EgOTUxMzQNCiAgIGUtbWFpbDogamVubnlAcmVkYmFjay5jb20NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoN Cg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkNoZW4gJiBZdWFuICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBbUGFnZSA0XQ0KDQoNCg0KDQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B836.B3ED7EF1-- _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 15 01:24:57 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11686 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVm9B-0002GE-Ou; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsXx-00073s-HO for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20494 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:13:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsXv-00068A-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:19 -0500 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsXu-00067X-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:18 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14AE22D48C8 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:40 -0500 (EST) 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 92326-01-42 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com (aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com [65.247.36.233]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A93C2D4801 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:38 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3B836.B3ED7EF1" Subject: RE: bgp router id Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:38 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: yes Thread-Topic: bgp router id Thread-Index: AcO0h3pJl12UtMVyT06mXpxDVRiRmAAF6NCwAOWVHNA= From: "Susan Hares" To: "Tony Li" , "Tulip Rasputin" , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B836.B3ED7EF1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tony and all:=20 Enke Chen proposed no restrictions on router ID in [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-03.txt]. I've attached an earlier version for anyone who wants the reasoning. =20 This Draft will be processed after the base specification. So, it would be unfortunate to use RFC 1918. =20 Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: Tony Li [mailto:Tony.Li@procket.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:31 PM To: Tulip Rasputin; routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: RE: bgp router id a) Since this is a BGP question, it truly belongs on the IDR list. b) Since the router ID is used to resolve the opening of the connection, it does NOT matter which address the router uses as long as it is globally unique. Using an RFC 1918 address would be... unfortunate. Tony | -----Original Message----- | From: Tulip Rasputin [mailto:tulip_rasputin@yahoo.ca]=20 | Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 5:23 PM | To: routing-discussion@ietf.org | Subject: bgp router id | =20 | =20 | Hi, | =20 | I noticed a BGP behaviour and just wanted to confirm if it=20 | is indeed an anormal thing to happen. I | am not using a loopback IP address nor have I configured a=20 | BGP router ID. It thus picks up the | highest IP address available as its Router ID for all the=20 | BGP session that it establishes. Now | when this interface goes down it picks up the next highest=20 | IP address that is available and uses | it for all subsequent peerings. | =20 | Isnt this odd? A single router using 2 different router IDs=20 | with two different peers? | =20 | I know this is wrong. Either this router should continue=20 | with the same old router ID (even though | the interface it not there .. but that hardly matters!) that=20 | it had or it should select a new | router ID, break off connections with all the previous peers=20 | (very expensive!) and establish new | connections with peers using this new Router ID. | =20 | I think it should be the former one. And when it finds that=20 | it has no more BGP speakers in FSM | state > OpenConfirm it can update use the new Router ID for=20 | all subsequent peerings. | =20 | WOuld like to hear your opinion, | =20 | Tulip | =20 | =20 | =20 | _____________________________________________________________ | _________=20 | Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca | =20 | _______________________________________________ | routing-discussion mailing list | routing-discussion@ietf.org | https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion | =20 _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B836.B3ED7EF1 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-chen-bgp-identifier-01.txt" Content-Description: draft-chen-bgp-identifier-01.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-chen-bgp-identifier-01.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQoNCg0KTmV0d29yayBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICBFbmtlIENoZW4NCkludGVybmV0IERyYWZ0ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBKZW5ueSBZdWFuDQpFeHBpcmF0aW9uIERhdGU6IEp1 bHkgMjAwMiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgUmVkYmFjayBOZXR3b3Jrcw0KDQoN CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBBUy13aWRlIFVuaXF1ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBmb3IgQkdQLTQN Cg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWNoZW4tYmdwLWlkZW50aWZpZXItMDEudHh0 DQoNCg0KMS4gU3RhdHVzIG9mIHRoaXMgTWVtbw0KDQogICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIGFuIElu dGVybmV0LURyYWZ0IGFuZCBpcyBpbiBmdWxsIGNvbmZvcm1hbmNlIHdpdGgNCiAgIGFsbCBwcm92 aXNpb25zIG9mIFNlY3Rpb24gMTAgb2YgUkZDMjAyNi4NCg0KICAgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRzIGFy ZSB3b3JraW5nIGRvY3VtZW50cyBvZiB0aGUgSW50ZXJuZXQgRW5naW5lZXJpbmcNCiAgIFRhc2sg Rm9yY2UgKElFVEYpLCBpdHMgYXJlYXMsIGFuZCBpdHMgd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMuICBOb3RlIHRo YXQNCiAgIG90aGVyIGdyb3VwcyBtYXkgYWxzbyBkaXN0cmlidXRlIHdvcmtpbmcgZG9jdW1lbnRz IGFzIEludGVybmV0LQ0KICAgRHJhZnRzLg0KDQogICBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdHMgYXJlIGRyYWZ0 IGRvY3VtZW50cyB2YWxpZCBmb3IgYSBtYXhpbXVtIG9mIHNpeCBtb250aHMNCiAgIGFuZCBtYXkg YmUgdXBkYXRlZCwgcmVwbGFjZWQsIG9yIG9ic29sZXRlZCBieSBvdGhlciBkb2N1bWVudHMgYXQg YW55DQogICB0aW1lLiAgSXQgaXMgaW5hcHByb3ByaWF0ZSB0byB1c2UgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRz IGFzIHJlZmVyZW5jZQ0KICAgbWF0ZXJpYWwgb3IgdG8gY2l0ZSB0aGVtIG90aGVyIHRoYW4gYXMg YGB3b3JrIGluIHByb2dyZXNzLicnDQoNCiAgIFRoZSBsaXN0IG9mIGN1cnJlbnQgSW50ZXJuZXQt RHJhZnRzIGNhbiBiZSBhY2Nlc3NlZCBhdA0KICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pZXRmLzFp ZC1hYnN0cmFjdHMudHh0DQoNCiAgIFRoZSBsaXN0IG9mIEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0IFNoYWRvdyBE aXJlY3RvcmllcyBjYW4gYmUgYWNjZXNzZWQgYXQNCiAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvc2hh ZG93Lmh0bWwuDQoNCg0KMi4gQWJzdHJhY3QNCg0KICAgVG8gYWNjb21tb2RhdGUgc2l0dWF0aW9u cyB3aGVyZSB0aGUgY3VycmVudCByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZm9yIHRoZSBCR1ANCiAgIElkZW50aWZp ZXIgYXJlIG5vdCBtZXQsIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgcmVsYXhlcyB0aGUgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBvZiB0 aGUNCiAgIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyIHRvIGJlIGEgNC1vY3RldCB1bnNpZ25lZCwgbm9uLXplcm8g aW50ZWdlciwgYW5kDQogICByZWxheGVzIHRoZSAidW5pcXVlbmVzcyIgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgc28g dGhhdCBvbmx5IEFTLXdpZGUgdW5pcXVlbmVzcw0KICAgb2YgdGhlIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVycyBp cyByZXF1aXJlZC4gVGhlc2UgcmV2aXNpb25zIHRvIHRoZSBiYXNlIEJHUA0KICAgc3BlY2lmaWNh dGlvbiBkb2VzIG5vdCBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgYW55IGJhY2t3YXJkIGNvbXBhdGliaWxpdHkgaXNzdWUu DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkNoZW4gJiBZdWFuICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBbUGFnZSAxXQ0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkludGVybmV0 IERyYWZ0ICAgICAgZHJhZnQtY2hlbi1iZ3AtaWRlbnRpZmllci0wMS50eHQgICAgICAgIEphbnVh cnkgMjAwMg0KDQoNCjMuIEludHJvZHVjdGlvbg0KDQogICBDdXJyZW50bHkgdGhlIEJHUCBJZGVu dGlmaWVyIG9mIGEgQkdQIHNwZWFrZXIgaXMgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGFzIGEgdmFsaWQNCiAgIElQdjQg aG9zdCBhZGRyZXNzIGFzc2lnbmVkIHRvIHRoZSBCR1Agc3BlYWtlciBbQkdQLTRdLiAgSW4gYWRk aXRpb24sDQogICB0aGUgZGVwbG95ZWQgQkdQIGNvZGUgcmVxdWlyZXMgdGhhdCB0d28gQkdQIHNw ZWFrZXJzIGJlIG9mIGRpc3RpbmN0DQogICBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllcnMgaW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gZXN0 YWJsaXNoIGEgQkdQIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24uDQoNCiAgIFRvIGFjY29tbW9kYXRlIHNpdHVhdGlvbnMg d2hlcmUgdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGZvciB0aGUgQkdQDQogICBJZGVudGlmaWVy IGFyZSBub3QgbWV0LCB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHJlbGF4ZXMgdGhlIGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgdGhl DQogICBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciB0byBiZSBhIDQtb2N0ZXQgdW5zaWduZWQsIG5vbi16ZXJvIGlu dGVnZXIsIGFuZA0KICAgcmVsYXhlcyB0aGUgInVuaXF1ZW5lc3MiIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IHNvIHRo YXQgb25seSBBUy13aWRlIHVuaXF1ZW5lc3MNCiAgIG9mIHRoZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllcnMgaXMg cmVxdWlyZWQuIFRoZXNlIHJldmlzaW9ucyB0byB0aGUgYmFzZSBCR1ANCiAgIHNwZWNpZmljYXRp b24gZG9lcyBub3QgaW50cm9kdWNlIGFueSBiYWNrd2FyZCBjb21wYXRpYmlsaXR5IGlzc3VlLg0K DQoNCjQuIFByb3RvY29sIFJldmlzaW9ucw0KDQogICBUaGUgcmV2aXNpb25zIHRvIHRoZSBiYXNl IEJHUCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIFtCR1AtNF0gaW5jbHVkZSB0aGUNCiAgIGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2Yg dGhlIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyIGFuZCBwcm9jZWR1cmVzIGZvciBhIEJHUCBzcGVha2VyDQogICB0 aGF0IHN1cHBvcnRzIHRoZSBBUy13aWRlIFVuaXF1ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllci4NCg0KDQo0LjEu IERlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyDQoNCiAgIEZvciBhIEJHUCBzcGVha2Vy IHRoYXQgc3VwcG9ydHMgdGhlIEFTLXdpZGUgVW5pcXVlIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyLA0KICAgdGhl IEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyIGlzIHNwZWNpZmllZCBhcyB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nOg0KDQogICAgIFRo ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBpcyBhIDQtb2N0ZXQgdW5zaWduZWQsIG5vbi16ZXJvIGludGVnZXIg dGhhdA0KICAgICBzaG91bGQgYmUgdW5pcXVlIHdpdGhpbiBhbiBBUy4gVGhlIHZhbHVlIG9mIHRo ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBmb3INCiAgICAgYSBCR1Agc3BlYWtlciBpcyBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIG9u IHN0YXJ0dXAgYW5kIGlzIHRoZSBzYW1lIGZvciBldmVyeQ0KICAgICBsb2NhbCBpbnRlcmZhY2Ug YW5kIGV2ZXJ5IEJHUCBwZWVyLg0KDQoNCjQuMi4gT3BlbiBNZXNzYWdlIEVycm9yIEhhbmRsaW5n DQoNCiAgIEZvciBhIEJHUCBzcGVha2VyIHRoYXQgc3VwcG9ydHMgdGhlIEFTLXdpZGUgVW5pcXVl IEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyLA0KICAgdGhlIE9QRU4gbWVzc2FnZSBlcnJvciBoYW5kbGluZyByZWxh dGVkIHRvIHRoZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBpcw0KICAgbW9kaWZpZWQgYXMgZm9sbG93czoNCg0K ICAgICBJZiB0aGUgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXIgZmllbGQgb2YgdGhlIE9QRU4gbWVzc2FnZSBpcyB6 ZXJvLCBvciBpZg0KICAgICBpdCBpcyB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyB0aGUgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXIgb2Yg dGhlIGxvY2FsIEJHUCBzcGVha2VyDQogICAgIGFuZCB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZSBpcyBmcm9tIGFuIGlu dGVybmFsIHBlZXIsIHRoZW4gdGhlIEVycm9yIFN1YmNvZGUNCiAgICAgaXMgc2V0IHRvICJCYWQg QkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXIiLg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkNoZW4gJiBZdWFuICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBbUGFnZSAyXQ0KDQoNCg0K DQoNCkludGVybmV0IERyYWZ0ICAgICAgZHJhZnQtY2hlbi1iZ3AtaWRlbnRpZmllci0wMS50eHQg ICAgICAgIEphbnVhcnkgMjAwMg0KDQoNCjQuMy4gQ29ubmVjdGlvbiBDb2xsaXNpb24gUmVzb2x1 dGlvbg0KDQogICBGb3IgYSBCR1Agc3BlYWtlciB0aGF0IHN1cHBvcnRzIHRoZSBBUy13aWRlIFVu aXF1ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciwNCiAgIHRoZSBwcm9jZWR1cmVzIGZvciBjb25uZWN0aW9uIGNv bGxpc2lvbiByZXNvbHV0aW9uIGFyZSBleHRlbmRlZCBhcw0KICAgZm9sbG93cyB0byBkZWFsIHdp dGggdGhlIGNhc2UgaW4gd2hpY2ggdGhlIHR3byBCR1Agc3BlYWtlcnMgc2hhcmUgdGhlDQogICBz YW1lIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyICh0aHVzIGl0IGlzIG9ubHkgYXBwbGljYWJsZSB0byBhbiBleHRl cm5hbCBwZWVyKToNCg0KICAgICBJZiB0aGUgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXJzIG9mIHRoZSBwZWVycyBp bnZvbHZlZCBpbiB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbg0KICAgICBjb2xsaXNpb24gYXJlIGlkZW50aWNhbCwg dGhlbiB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGlvbiBpbml0aWF0ZWQgYnkgdGhlIEJHUA0KICAgICBzcGVha2VyIHdp dGggdGhlIGxhcmdlciBBUyBudW1iZXIgaXMgcHJlc2VydmVkLg0KDQogICBUaGlzIGV4dGVuc2lv biBjb3ZlcnMgY2FzZXMgaW4gd2hpY2ggdGhlIGZvdXItb2N0ZXQgQVMgbnVtYmVycyBhcmUNCiAg IGludm9sdmVkIFtCR1AtNEJZVEUtQVNdLg0KDQoNCjUuIFJlbWFya3MNCg0KICAgSXQgaXMgbm90 ZWQgdGhhdCBhIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyIGFsbG9jYXRlZCBiYXNlZCBvbiBbQkdQLTRdIGZpdHMg dGhlDQogICByZXZpc2VkIGRlZmluaXRpb24uDQoNCiAgIEluIGNhc2Ugb2YgQkdQIENvbmZlZGVy YXRpb24sIHRoZSB3aG9sZSBjb25mZWRlcmF0aW9uIGlzIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQNCiAgIGFzIG9uZSBB UyBmb3IgdGhlIHB1cnBvc2Ugb2Ygc3VwcG9ydGluZyB0aGUgQVMtd2lkZSBVbmlxdWUgQkdQDQog ICBJZGVudGlmaWVyLg0KDQogICBBIEJHUCBzcGVha2VyIHRoYXQgc3VwcG9ydHMgdGhlIEFTLXdp ZGUgVW5pcXVlIEJHUCBJZGVudGlmaWVyIGNhbiBub3QNCiAgIHNoYXJlIGEgQkdQIElkZW50aWZp ZXIgd2l0aCBpdHMgZXh0ZXJuYWwgbmVpZ2hib3IgdW50aWwgdGhlIHJlbW90ZQ0KICAgQkdQIHNw ZWFrZXIgaXMgdXBncmFkZWQgd2l0aCBzb2Z0d2FyZSB0aGF0IHN1cHBvcnRzIHRoZSBwcm9wb3Nl ZA0KICAgcmV2aXNpb25zLg0KDQogICBJbiBhZGRpdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgT1BFTiBtZXNzYWdlLCB0 aGUgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXIgaXMgY3VycmVudGx5IGFsc28NCiAgIHVzZWQgaW4gdGhlIGZvbGxv d2luZyBhcmVhczoNCg0KICAgICBvIEluIHRoZSBBR0dSRUFHVE9SIGF0dHJpYnV0ZSBvZiBhIHJv dXRlIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBjb21iaW5hdGlvbiBvZg0KICAgICAgIGEgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXIgYW5k IGFuIEFTIG51bWJlciB1bmlxdWVseSBpZGVudGlmaWVzIHRoZSBCR1ANCiAgICAgICBzcGVha2Vy IHRoYXQgcGVyZm9ybXMgdGhlIHJvdXRlIGFnZ3JlZ2F0aW9uLg0KDQogICAgIG8gSW4gdGhlIFJv dXRlIFJlZmxlY3Rpb24gKGluIGxpZXUgb2YgdGhlIENsdXN0ZXItaWQpIHdpdGhpbiBhbg0KICAg ICAgIEFTLCB3aGVyZSBvbmx5IHRoZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBvZiBhbiBpbnRlcm5hbCBuZWln aGJvciBtYXkNCiAgICAgICBiZSBwcm9wYWdhdGVkIGluIHRoZSByb3V0ZSByZWZsZWN0aW9uIHJl bGF0ZWQgYXR0cmlidXRlcy4NCg0KICAgICBvIEluIHRoZSByb3V0ZSBzZWxlY3Rpb24sIHdoZXJl IHRoZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllciBpcyBub3QgdXNlZA0KICAgICAgIGluIGNvbXBhcmluZyBhIHJv dXRlIGZyb20gYW4gaW50ZXJuYWwgbmVpZ2hib3IgYW5kIGEgcm91dGUgZnJvbQ0KICAgICAgIGFu IGV4dGVybmFsIG5laWdoYm9yLiBJbiBhZGRpdGlvbiwgcm91dGVzIGZyb20gQkdQIHNwZWFrZXJz IHdpdGgNCiAgICAgICBpZGVudGljYWwgQkdQIElkZW50aWZpZXJzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBkZWFsdCB3 aXRoIChlLmcuLCBwYXJhbGxlbA0KICAgICAgIEJHUCBzZXNzaW9ucyBiZXR3ZWVuIHR3byBCR1Ag c3BlYWtlcnMpLg0KDQogICBUaGVyZWZvcmUgaXQgaXMgY29uY2x1ZGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIHJldmlz aW9ucyBwcm9wb3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzDQogICBkb2N1bWVudCBkbyBub3QgaW50cm9kdWNlIGFueSBi YWNrd2FyZCBjb21wYXRpYmlsaXR5IGlzc3VlIHdpdGggdGhlDQoNCg0KDQpDaGVuICYgWXVhbiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgW1BhZ2Ug M10NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpJbnRlcm5ldCBEcmFmdCAgICAgIGRyYWZ0LWNoZW4tYmdwLWlkZW50aWZp ZXItMDEudHh0ICAgICAgICBKYW51YXJ5IDIwMDINCg0KDQogICBjdXJyZW50IHVzYWdlIG9mIHRo ZSBCR1AgSWRlbnRpZmllci4NCg0KDQo2LiBTZWN1cml0eSBDb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucw0KDQogICBU aGlzIGV4dGVuc2lvbiB0byBCR1AgZG9lcyBub3QgY2hhbmdlIHRoZSB1bmRlcmx5aW5nIHNlY3Vy aXR5IGlzc3Vlcy4NCg0KDQo3LiBBY2tub3dsZWRnbWVudHMNCg0KICAgW1RCRF0NCg0KDQo4LiBS ZWZlcmVuY2VzDQoNCiAgIFtCR1AtNF0gWS4gUmVraHRlciwgYW5kIFQuIExpLCAiQSBCb3JkZXIg R2F0ZXdheSBQcm90b2NvbCA0IChCR1AtNCkiLA0KICAgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1pZHItYmdwNC0xNi50 eHQsIE5vdmVtYmVyIDIwMDEuDQoNCiAgIFtCR1AtNEJZVEUtQVNdIFEuIFZvaHJhLCBFLiBDaGVu LCAiQkdQIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIGZvdXItb2N0ZXQgQVMNCiAgIG51bWJlciBzcGFjZSIsIFdvcmsg aW4gUHJvZ3Jlc3MsIDxkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlkci1hczRieXRlcy0wNC50eHQ+LA0KICAgU2VwdGVt YmVyIDIwMDEuDQoNCg0KOS4gQXV0aG9yIEluZm9ybWF0aW9uDQoNCiAgIEVua2UgQ2hlbg0KICAg UmVkYmFjayBOZXR3b3JrcywgSW5jLg0KICAgMzUwIEhvbGdlciBXYXkNCiAgIFNhbiBKb3NlLCBD QSA5NTEzNA0KICAgZS1tYWlsOiBlbmtlQHJlZGJhY2suY29tDQoNCiAgIEplbm55IFl1YW4NCiAg IFJlZGJhY2sgTmV0d29ya3MsIEluYy4NCiAgIDM1MCBIb2xnZXIgV2F5DQogICBTYW4gSm9zZSwg Q0EgOTUxMzQNCiAgIGUtbWFpbDogamVubnlAcmVkYmFjay5jb20NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoN Cg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkNoZW4gJiBZdWFuICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBbUGFnZSA0XQ0KDQoNCg0KDQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B836.B3ED7EF1-- _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 15 11:45:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16130 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:45:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvqB-00031d-PM; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:45:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvpf-00030o-JQ for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:44:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16097 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:44:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvpe-0000Ry-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:44:30 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvpd-0000RK-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:44:29 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBFGhxIx019711; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:59 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFGhxRV019710; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:59 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:59 -0800 From: David Meyer To: grow@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt Message-ID: <20031215164359.GA19630@1-4-5.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Folks, The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are my plans, as they stand at the moment: (i). Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT Operational Concerns and Considerations for Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference, and Fit (RIFT) The reason for the rename is that many people felt that using the term "Overload" was not only negative, but assumed that routing protocols were indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the intention of the document, so for these reasons it seems to make some sense to rename it. (ii). publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt This means moving the DT from the routing area into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the new GROW charter/milestones before formally making this move. However, if you are interested in looking at the document before then, please see http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on the draft and on the plan to move the DT into GROW). (iii). Announce on routing-discussion@ietf.org and grow@lists.uoregon.edu Again, waiting on IESG decision before this. I will post an update to both lists as soon as I get an update from the IESG. Questions or comments on the plan or the draft? Dave _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 11:45:53 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16133 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:45:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvqX-00034R-40 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:45:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFGjOpC011726 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:45:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvqB-00031d-PM; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:45:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvpf-00030o-JQ for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:44:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16097 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:44:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvpe-0000Ry-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:44:30 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvpd-0000RK-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:44:29 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBFGhxIx019711; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:59 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFGhxRV019710; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:59 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:59 -0800 From: David Meyer To: grow@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt Message-ID: <20031215164359.GA19630@1-4-5.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Folks, The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are my plans, as they stand at the moment: (i). Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT Operational Concerns and Considerations for Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference, and Fit (RIFT) The reason for the rename is that many people felt that using the term "Overload" was not only negative, but assumed that routing protocols were indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the intention of the document, so for these reasons it seems to make some sense to rename it. (ii). publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt This means moving the DT from the routing area into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the new GROW charter/milestones before formally making this move. However, if you are interested in looking at the document before then, please see http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on the draft and on the plan to move the DT into GROW). (iii). Announce on routing-discussion@ietf.org and grow@lists.uoregon.edu Again, waiting on IESG decision before this. I will post an update to both lists as soon as I get an update from the IESG. Questions or comments on the plan or the draft? Dave _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Tue Dec 16 04:15:58 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05227 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWBIE-0008P0-LO; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWBI9-0008Ol-Ml for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:14:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05221 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWBI6-00065q-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:14:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWBI6-00065j-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:14:54 -0500 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWBI5-00063k-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:14:53 -0500 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 hBG9EIBm092347; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:14:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id hBG9EIX66506; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:14:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200312160914.hBG9EIX66506@merlot.juniper.net> To: David Meyer cc: grow@lists.uoregon.edu, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:59 PST." <20031215164359.GA19630@1-4-5.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <58282.1071566057.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:14:18 -0800 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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dave, > Folks, > > The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are > my plans, as they stand at the moment: > > (i). Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT > > Operational Concerns and Considerations for > Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference, > and Fit (RIFT) > > The reason for the rename is that many people > felt that using the term "Overload" was not only > negative, but assumed that routing protocols were > indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the > intention of the document, so for these reasons > it seems to make some sense to rename it. > > (ii). publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt > > This means moving the DT from the routing area > into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the > new GROW charter/milestones before formally > making this move. However, if you are interested > in looking at the document before then, please > see > > http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt > > As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on > the draft and on the plan to move the DT into > GROW). Do we have a consensus of the GROW WG to accept it as a GROW WG document ? Yakov. _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 04:15:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05242 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:15:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWBIg-0008QV-4Z for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:15:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBG9FTGu032388 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:15:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWBIE-0008P0-LO; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWBI9-0008Ol-Ml for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:14:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05221 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWBI6-00065q-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:14:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWBI6-00065j-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:14:54 -0500 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWBI5-00063k-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:14:53 -0500 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 hBG9EIBm092347; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:14:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id hBG9EIX66506; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:14:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200312160914.hBG9EIX66506@merlot.juniper.net> To: David Meyer cc: grow@lists.uoregon.edu, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:59 PST." <20031215164359.GA19630@1-4-5.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <58282.1071566057.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:14:18 -0800 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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dave, > Folks, > > The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are > my plans, as they stand at the moment: > > (i). Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT > > Operational Concerns and Considerations for > Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference, > and Fit (RIFT) > > The reason for the rename is that many people > felt that using the term "Overload" was not only > negative, but assumed that routing protocols were > indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the > intention of the document, so for these reasons > it seems to make some sense to rename it. > > (ii). publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt > > This means moving the DT from the routing area > into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the > new GROW charter/milestones before formally > making this move. However, if you are interested > in looking at the document before then, please > see > > http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt > > As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on > the draft and on the plan to move the DT into > GROW). Do we have a consensus of the GROW WG to accept it as a GROW WG document ? Yakov. _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Tue Dec 16 13:06:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25949 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWJa5-0005oH-PN; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWJZe-0005lL-Qq for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25860 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJZd-0004XK-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJZb-0004XD-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:32 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJZb-0004WF-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:31 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBGI50Ix000479; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:05:00 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGI50LN000478; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:05:00 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:05:00 -0800 From: David Meyer To: Yakov Rekhter Cc: grow@lists.uoregon.edu, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt Message-ID: <20031216180500.GA371@1-4-5.net> References: <20031215164359.GA19630@1-4-5.net> <200312160914.hBG9EIX66506@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312160914.hBG9EIX66506@merlot.juniper.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon 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 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Yakov, On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:14:18AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: >> Dave, >> >> > Folks, >> > >> > The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are >> > my plans, as they stand at the moment: >> > >> > (i). Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT >> > >> > Operational Concerns and Considerations for >> > Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference, >> > and Fit (RIFT) >> > >> > The reason for the rename is that many people >> > felt that using the term "Overload" was not only >> > negative, but assumed that routing protocols were >> > indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the >> > intention of the document, so for these reasons >> > it seems to make some sense to rename it. >> > >> > (ii). publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt >> > >> > This means moving the DT from the routing area >> > into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the >> > new GROW charter/milestones before formally >> > making this move. However, if you are interested >> > in looking at the document before then, please >> > see >> > >> > http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt >> > >> > As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on >> > the draft and on the plan to move the DT into >> > GROW). >> >> Do we have a consensus of the GROW WG to accept it as a GROW WG document ? According to my notes for the last WG session, yes. However, there was clearly mass confusion after the last meeting (and add to that the fact that although the AD said that the document was in scope, the WG in the process of being rechartered; the point being that it is really hard state authoritatively what will be in scope). Given all of that, I think it is worthwhile asking the WG again if we have consensus that this should be a WG document. Comments? Dave _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 13:06:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25960 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWJaM-0005rZ-JW for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGI6IaM022536 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWJa5-0005oH-PN; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWJZe-0005lL-Qq for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25860 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJZd-0004XK-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJZb-0004XD-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:32 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJZb-0004WF-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:31 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBGI50Ix000479; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:05:00 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGI50LN000478; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:05:00 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:05:00 -0800 From: David Meyer To: Yakov Rekhter Cc: grow@lists.uoregon.edu, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt Message-ID: <20031216180500.GA371@1-4-5.net> References: <20031215164359.GA19630@1-4-5.net> <200312160914.hBG9EIX66506@merlot.juniper.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312160914.hBG9EIX66506@merlot.juniper.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon 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 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Yakov, On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:14:18AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: >> Dave, >> >> > Folks, >> > >> > The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are >> > my plans, as they stand at the moment: >> > >> > (i). Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT >> > >> > Operational Concerns and Considerations for >> > Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference, >> > and Fit (RIFT) >> > >> > The reason for the rename is that many people >> > felt that using the term "Overload" was not only >> > negative, but assumed that routing protocols were >> > indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the >> > intention of the document, so for these reasons >> > it seems to make some sense to rename it. >> > >> > (ii). publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt >> > >> > This means moving the DT from the routing area >> > into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the >> > new GROW charter/milestones before formally >> > making this move. However, if you are interested >> > in looking at the document before then, please >> > see >> > >> > http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt >> > >> > As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on >> > the draft and on the plan to move the DT into >> > GROW). >> >> Do we have a consensus of the GROW WG to accept it as a GROW WG document ? According to my notes for the last WG session, yes. However, there was clearly mass confusion after the last meeting (and add to that the fact that although the AD said that the document was in scope, the WG in the process of being rechartered; the point being that it is really hard state authoritatively what will be in scope). Given all of that, I think it is worthwhile asking the WG again if we have consensus that this should be a WG document. Comments? Dave _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Tue Dec 16 18:44:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15020 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOrB-00056s-0J; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOqz-00056b-Ah for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:43:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15009 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:43:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOqw-0002eh-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:43:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOqv-0002ea-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:43:45 -0500 Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOqu-0002eL-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:43:45 -0500 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 hBGNhEl01290; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:43:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id hBGNh9X37543; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:43:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200312162343.hBGNh9X37543@merlot.juniper.net> To: David Meyer cc: grow@lists.uoregon.edu, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:05:00 PST." <20031216180500.GA371@1-4-5.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3725.1071618189.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:43:09 -0800 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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dave, > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:14:18AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > >> Dave, > >> > >> > Folks, > >> > > >> > The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are > >> > my plans, as they stand at the moment: > >> > > >> > (i). Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT > >> > > >> > Operational Concerns and Considerations for > >> > Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference, > >> > and Fit (RIFT) > >> > > >> > The reason for the rename is that many people > >> > felt that using the term "Overload" was not only > >> > negative, but assumed that routing protocols were > >> > indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the > >> > intention of the document, so for these reasons > >> > it seems to make some sense to rename it. > >> > > >> > (ii). publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt > >> > > >> > This means moving the DT from the routing area > >> > into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the > >> > new GROW charter/milestones before formally > >> > making this move. However, if you are interested > >> > in looking at the document before then, please > >> > see > >> > > >> > http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt > >> > > >> > As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on > >> > the draft and on the plan to move the DT into > >> > GROW). > >> > >> Do we have a consensus of the GROW WG to accept it as a GROW WG document ? > > According to my notes for the last WG session, yes. > However, there was clearly mass confusion after the > last meeting (and add to that the fact that although the > AD said that the document was in scope, the WG in the > process of being rechartered; the point being that it is > really hard state authoritatively what will be in > scope). Given all of that, I think it is worthwhile > asking the WG again if we have consensus that this should > be a WG document. > > Comments? I certainly agree with your suggestion to ask the WG again if there is a consensus. Yakov. _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 18:44:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15035 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOrN-000589-MV for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:44:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGNiD9C019715 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:44:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOrB-00056s-0J; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOqz-00056b-Ah for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:43:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15009 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:43:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOqw-0002eh-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:43:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOqv-0002ea-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:43:45 -0500 Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOqu-0002eL-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:43:45 -0500 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 hBGNhEl01290; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:43:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id hBGNh9X37543; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:43:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200312162343.hBGNh9X37543@merlot.juniper.net> To: David Meyer cc: grow@lists.uoregon.edu, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:05:00 PST." <20031216180500.GA371@1-4-5.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3725.1071618189.1@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:43:09 -0800 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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dave, > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:14:18AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > >> Dave, > >> > >> > Folks, > >> > > >> > The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are > >> > my plans, as they stand at the moment: > >> > > >> > (i). Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT > >> > > >> > Operational Concerns and Considerations for > >> > Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference, > >> > and Fit (RIFT) > >> > > >> > The reason for the rename is that many people > >> > felt that using the term "Overload" was not only > >> > negative, but assumed that routing protocols were > >> > indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the > >> > intention of the document, so for these reasons > >> > it seems to make some sense to rename it. > >> > > >> > (ii). publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt > >> > > >> > This means moving the DT from the routing area > >> > into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the > >> > new GROW charter/milestones before formally > >> > making this move. However, if you are interested > >> > in looking at the document before then, please > >> > see > >> > > >> > http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt > >> > > >> > As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on > >> > the draft and on the plan to move the DT into > >> > GROW). > >> > >> Do we have a consensus of the GROW WG to accept it as a GROW WG document ? > > According to my notes for the last WG session, yes. > However, there was clearly mass confusion after the > last meeting (and add to that the fact that although the > AD said that the document was in scope, the WG in the > process of being rechartered; the point being that it is > really hard state authoritatively what will be in > scope). Given all of that, I think it is worthwhile > asking the WG again if we have consensus that this should > be a WG document. > > Comments? I certainly agree with your suggestion to ask the WG again if there is a consensus. Yakov. _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Tue Dec 16 18:54:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15352 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWP0r-0005me-Bn; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWP0J-0005d8-GI for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15244 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWP0G-0002ph-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWP0F-0002pa-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:24 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org ([209.150.1.230]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWP0E-0002pU-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:22 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBGNp9Ag069630; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:51:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200312162351.hBGNp9Ag069630@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Yakov Rekhter cc: David Meyer , grow@lists.uoregon.edu, routing-discussion@ietf.org Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:43:09 PST." <200312162343.hBGNh9X37543@merlot.juniper.net> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:51:09 -0500 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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In message <200312162343.hBGNh9X37543@merlot.juniper.net>, Yakov Rekhter writes : > Dave, > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:14:18AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > >> Dave, > > >> > > >> > Folks, > > >> > > > >> > The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are > > >> > my plans, as they stand at the moment: > > >> > > > >> > (i). Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT > > >> > > > >> > Operational Concerns and Considerations for > > >> > Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference, > > >> > and Fit (RIFT) > > >> > > > >> > The reason for the rename is that many people > > >> > felt that using the term "Overload" was not only > > >> > negative, but assumed that routing protocols were > > >> > indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the > > >> > intention of the document, so for these reasons > > >> > it seems to make some sense to rename it. > > >> > > > >> > (ii). publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt > > >> > > > >> > This means moving the DT from the routing area > > >> > into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the > > >> > new GROW charter/milestones before formally > > >> > making this move. However, if you are interested > > >> > in looking at the document before then, please > > >> > see > > >> > > > >> > http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.tx > t > > >> > > > >> > As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on > > >> > the draft and on the plan to move the DT into > > >> > GROW). > > >> > > >> Do we have a consensus of the GROW WG to accept it as a GROW WG document > ? > > > > According to my notes for the last WG session, yes. > > However, there was clearly mass confusion after the > > last meeting (and add to that the fact that although the > > AD said that the document was in scope, the WG in the > > process of being rechartered; the point being that it is > > really hard state authoritatively what will be in > > scope). Given all of that, I think it is worthwhile > > asking the WG again if we have consensus that this should > > be a WG document. > > > > Comments? > > I certainly agree with your suggestion to ask the WG again if there > is a consensus. > > Yakov. Its a really good informational draft and it should go forward on some WG. Grow seems as good as any for this. Curtis _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 18:54:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15371 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWP0u-0005sg-4c for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:54:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGNs4DK022585 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:54:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWP0r-0005me-Bn; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWP0J-0005d8-GI for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15244 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWP0G-0002ph-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWP0F-0002pa-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:24 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org ([209.150.1.230]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWP0E-0002pU-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:22 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBGNp9Ag069630; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:51:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200312162351.hBGNp9Ag069630@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Yakov Rekhter cc: David Meyer , grow@lists.uoregon.edu, routing-discussion@ietf.org Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:43:09 PST." <200312162343.hBGNh9X37543@merlot.juniper.net> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:51:09 -0500 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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In message <200312162343.hBGNh9X37543@merlot.juniper.net>, Yakov Rekhter writes : > Dave, > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:14:18AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > >> Dave, > > >> > > >> > Folks, > > >> > > > >> > The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are > > >> > my plans, as they stand at the moment: > > >> > > > >> > (i). Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT > > >> > > > >> > Operational Concerns and Considerations for > > >> > Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference, > > >> > and Fit (RIFT) > > >> > > > >> > The reason for the rename is that many people > > >> > felt that using the term "Overload" was not only > > >> > negative, but assumed that routing protocols were > > >> > indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the > > >> > intention of the document, so for these reasons > > >> > it seems to make some sense to rename it. > > >> > > > >> > (ii). publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt > > >> > > > >> > This means moving the DT from the routing area > > >> > into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the > > >> > new GROW charter/milestones before formally > > >> > making this move. However, if you are interested > > >> > in looking at the document before then, please > > >> > see > > >> > > > >> > http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.tx > t > > >> > > > >> > As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on > > >> > the draft and on the plan to move the DT into > > >> > GROW). > > >> > > >> Do we have a consensus of the GROW WG to accept it as a GROW WG document > ? > > > > According to my notes for the last WG session, yes. > > However, there was clearly mass confusion after the > > last meeting (and add to that the fact that although the > > AD said that the document was in scope, the WG in the > > process of being rechartered; the point being that it is > > really hard state authoritatively what will be in > > scope). Given all of that, I think it is worthwhile > > asking the WG again if we have consensus that this should > > be a WG document. > > > > Comments? > > I certainly agree with your suggestion to ask the WG again if there > is a consensus. > > Yakov. Its a really good informational draft and it should go forward on some WG. Grow seems as good as any for this. Curtis _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 14:32:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27656 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhOf-0002zW-U5 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:31:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHJVnuZ011420 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:31:49 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhNt-0002wq-Jk; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhCo-0002ar-I9 for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27324 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhCm-0004e9-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhCk-0004e1-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:31 -0500 Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhCk-0004dt-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:30 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.39] (unknown [151.118.13.197]) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88039429E; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:19:21 -0700 (MST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) In-Reply-To: <200312162351.hBGNp9Ag069630@workhorse.fictitious.org> References: <200312162351.hBGNp9Ag069630@workhorse.fictitious.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:19:21 -0700 To: grow@lists.uoregon.edu, routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) 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 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Its a really good informational draft and it should go forward on some > WG. Grow seems as good as any for this. I fully agree (though am admittedly bias). -danny _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Wed Dec 17 14:32:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27671 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:32:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhNt-0002wq-Jk; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhCo-0002ar-I9 for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27324 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhCm-0004e9-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhCk-0004e1-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:31 -0500 Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhCk-0004dt-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:30 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.39] (unknown [151.118.13.197]) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88039429E; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:19:21 -0700 (MST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) In-Reply-To: <200312162351.hBGNp9Ag069630@workhorse.fictitious.org> References: <200312162351.hBGNp9Ag069630@workhorse.fictitious.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Danny McPherson Subject: Re: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:19:21 -0700 To: grow@lists.uoregon.edu, routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) 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 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Its a really good informational draft and it should go forward on some > WG. Grow seems as good as any for this. I fully agree (though am admittedly bias). -danny _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 19 23:40:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11224 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:40:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXYu8-0001lL-80 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:39:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBK4dqGh006775 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:39:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXYtM-0001k4-K6; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:39:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXYsu-0001jj-Up for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:38:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11195 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXYss-0007a1-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:38:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXYsq-0007Zh-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:38:34 -0500 Received: from web40308.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.78.87]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXYsq-0007Z3-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:38:32 -0500 Message-ID: <20031220043802.93656.qmail@web40308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.124.240.10] by web40308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:38:02 PST Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:38:02 -0800 (PST) From: Abhishek Mittal Subject: eBGP out-bound load sharing with 2 Different Service provider To: routing-discussion@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1992818948-1071895082=:91860" 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,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --0-1992818948-1071895082=:91860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi , I have one query regarding BGP out-bond load sharing. I have two different upstream ISP from where we have taken the Internet bandwidth. From one service provider (ABC) we have 3 eBGP sessions for 3 different links. One is for Premium bandwidth second is for shared bandwidth and third is for Interconnect of that service provider used as multihoming , as we have the same service provider in other locations also. We are receiving default route as well as local peering route from fist & second eBGP peering and only default route from third eBGP peering respectively. From second service provider (XYZ) we have only one eBGP peeing. and we are receiving only default routes as well as local -peering routes. Now First service provider (ABC) is exporting the BGP communities to upstream provider.For all the 3 eBGP sessions are having different communities.That's why it will take the different path. Now we want to send the outbound traffic of some prefixes from ABC's first link and rest traffic from (XYZ).As well as we want to make the redundancy for both. 1> We are using the distribution lists only not prefix list in BGP policies. 2> We are using ip default-network not 0/0 route.There for both the ISP are having different default-network. 3> IP default-network is same for all 3 links of first (ABC) ISP. 4> In bond traffic is managing properly as we are announcing aggregate on all the eBGP sessions as well as different prefixes on different eBGP sessions as per our requirement.And we are having the full redundancy for in bond traffic.As we are using high prepend for some eBGP peering. 5> All eBGP peering is made with loopback ip . 6> We are using serial link for connectivity with service provider. 7> We are using OSPF as IGP and BGP as EGP. 8> We can not have full routing table due to router restriction.We have Cisco 7513 for this. Problem : If we sharing the out bond traffic on first service provider (ABC) on first and second link, (ABC) is exporting the community and set the different community.So both will take the different uplink path and second one is not having any redundancy after (ABC) gateway (As per SLA). So it could create a problem like.....one packet will go and another packet will drop. Therefore to avoid this problem we want to send our out-bond traffic for some prefixes on (ABC) first link and rest on (XYZ). And want to build redundancy also.We don't want to use (ABC)'s third link because it is commissioned for different purpose. Kindly give us some guidelines , how can we make this scenario to serve better for our customer.Might be there is some thing missing, if so kindly let me know ...... I 'll highly appreciate your kind response for the same. Thanks & Regards Abhishek Mittal --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --0-1992818948-1071895082=:91860 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Hi ,
 
I have one query regarding BGP out-bond load sharing.
 
I have two different upstream ISP from where we have taken the Internet bandwidth.
 
From one service provider (ABC) we have 3 eBGP sessions for 3 different links.
One is for Premium bandwidth  second is for shared bandwidth and third is for Interconnect of that service provider used as multihoming , as we have the same service provider in other locations also.
We are receiving default route as well as local peering route from fist & second eBGP peering and only default route from third eBGP peering respectively.
 
From second service provider (XYZ) we have only one eBGP peeing. and we are receiving only default routes as well as local -peering routes.
 
Now First service provider (ABC) is exporting the BGP communities to upstream provider.For all the 3 eBGP sessions are having different communities.That's why it will take the different path.
 
Now we want to send the outbound traffic of some prefixes from ABC's first link and rest traffic from (XYZ).As well as we want to make the redundancy for both.
 
1> We are using the distribution lists only not prefix list in BGP policies.
2> We are using ip default-network not 0/0 route.There for both the ISP are having different default-network.
3> IP default-network is same for all 3 links of first (ABC) ISP.
4> In bond traffic is managing properly as we are announcing aggregate on all the eBGP sessions as well as different prefixes on different eBGP sessions as per our requirement.And we are having the full redundancy for in bond traffic.As we are using high prepend for some eBGP peering.
5> All eBGP peering is made with loopback ip .
6> We are using serial link for connectivity with service provider.
7> We are using OSPF as IGP and BGP as EGP.
8> We can not have full routing table due to router restriction.We have Cisco 7513 for this. 
 
Problem :
 
If we sharing the out bond traffic on first service provider (ABC) on first and second link, (ABC) is exporting the community and set the different community.So both will take the different uplink path and second one is not having any redundancy after (ABC) gateway (As per SLA). So it could create a problem like.....one packet will go and another packet will drop.
 
Therefore to avoid this problem we want to send our out-bond traffic for some prefixes on (ABC) first link and rest on (XYZ). And want to build redundancy also.We don't want to use (ABC)'s third link because it is commissioned for different purpose.
 
Kindly give us some guidelines , how can we make this scenario to serve better for our customer.Might be there is some thing missing, if so kindly let me  know ......
 
I 'll highly appreciate your kind response for the same.
 
Thanks & Regards
Abhishek Mittal

Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --0-1992818948-1071895082=:91860-- _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Sat Dec 20 00:28:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11226 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:40:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXYtM-0001k4-K6; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:39:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXYsu-0001jj-Up for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:38:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11195 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXYss-0007a1-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:38:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXYsq-0007Zh-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:38:34 -0500 Received: from web40308.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.78.87]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXYsq-0007Z3-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:38:32 -0500 Message-ID: <20031220043802.93656.qmail@web40308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.124.240.10] by web40308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:38:02 PST Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:38:02 -0800 (PST) From: Abhishek Mittal Subject: eBGP out-bound load sharing with 2 Different Service provider To: routing-discussion@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1992818948-1071895082=:91860" 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,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --0-1992818948-1071895082=:91860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi , I have one query regarding BGP out-bond load sharing. I have two different upstream ISP from where we have taken the Internet bandwidth. From one service provider (ABC) we have 3 eBGP sessions for 3 different links. One is for Premium bandwidth second is for shared bandwidth and third is for Interconnect of that service provider used as multihoming , as we have the same service provider in other locations also. We are receiving default route as well as local peering route from fist & second eBGP peering and only default route from third eBGP peering respectively. From second service provider (XYZ) we have only one eBGP peeing. and we are receiving only default routes as well as local -peering routes. Now First service provider (ABC) is exporting the BGP communities to upstream provider.For all the 3 eBGP sessions are having different communities.That's why it will take the different path. Now we want to send the outbound traffic of some prefixes from ABC's first link and rest traffic from (XYZ).As well as we want to make the redundancy for both. 1> We are using the distribution lists only not prefix list in BGP policies. 2> We are using ip default-network not 0/0 route.There for both the ISP are having different default-network. 3> IP default-network is same for all 3 links of first (ABC) ISP. 4> In bond traffic is managing properly as we are announcing aggregate on all the eBGP sessions as well as different prefixes on different eBGP sessions as per our requirement.And we are having the full redundancy for in bond traffic.As we are using high prepend for some eBGP peering. 5> All eBGP peering is made with loopback ip . 6> We are using serial link for connectivity with service provider. 7> We are using OSPF as IGP and BGP as EGP. 8> We can not have full routing table due to router restriction.We have Cisco 7513 for this. Problem : If we sharing the out bond traffic on first service provider (ABC) on first and second link, (ABC) is exporting the community and set the different community.So both will take the different uplink path and second one is not having any redundancy after (ABC) gateway (As per SLA). So it could create a problem like.....one packet will go and another packet will drop. Therefore to avoid this problem we want to send our out-bond traffic for some prefixes on (ABC) first link and rest on (XYZ). And want to build redundancy also.We don't want to use (ABC)'s third link because it is commissioned for different purpose. Kindly give us some guidelines , how can we make this scenario to serve better for our customer.Might be there is some thing missing, if so kindly let me know ...... I 'll highly appreciate your kind response for the same. Thanks & Regards Abhishek Mittal --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --0-1992818948-1071895082=:91860 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Hi ,
 
I have one query regarding BGP out-bond load sharing.
 
I have two different upstream ISP from where we have taken the Internet bandwidth.
 
From one service provider (ABC) we have 3 eBGP sessions for 3 different links.
One is for Premium bandwidth  second is for shared bandwidth and third is for Interconnect of that service provider used as multihoming , as we have the same service provider in other locations also.
We are receiving default route as well as local peering route from fist & second eBGP peering and only default route from third eBGP peering respectively.
 
From second service provider (XYZ) we have only one eBGP peeing. and we are receiving only default routes as well as local -peering routes.
 
Now First service provider (ABC) is exporting the BGP communities to upstream provider.For all the 3 eBGP sessions are having different communities.That's why it will take the different path.
 
Now we want to send the outbound traffic of some prefixes from ABC's first link and rest traffic from (XYZ).As well as we want to make the redundancy for both.
 
1> We are using the distribution lists only not prefix list in BGP policies.
2> We are using ip default-network not 0/0 route.There for both the ISP are having different default-network.
3> IP default-network is same for all 3 links of first (ABC) ISP.
4> In bond traffic is managing properly as we are announcing aggregate on all the eBGP sessions as well as different prefixes on different eBGP sessions as per our requirement.And we are having the full redundancy for in bond traffic.As we are using high prepend for some eBGP peering.
5> All eBGP peering is made with loopback ip .
6> We are using serial link for connectivity with service provider.
7> We are using OSPF as IGP and BGP as EGP.
8> We can not have full routing table due to router restriction.We have Cisco 7513 for this. 
 
Problem :
 
If we sharing the out bond traffic on first service provider (ABC) on first and second link, (ABC) is exporting the community and set the different community.So both will take the different uplink path and second one is not having any redundancy after (ABC) gateway (As per SLA). So it could create a problem like.....one packet will go and another packet will drop.
 
Therefore to avoid this problem we want to send our out-bond traffic for some prefixes on (ABC) first link and rest on (XYZ). And want to build redundancy also.We don't want to use (ABC)'s third link because it is commissioned for different purpose.
 
Kindly give us some guidelines , how can we make this scenario to serve better for our customer.Might be there is some thing missing, if so kindly let me  know ......
 
I 'll highly appreciate your kind response for the same.
 
Thanks & Regards
Abhishek Mittal

Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --0-1992818948-1071895082=:91860-- _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 00:53:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13082 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:53:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXa32-0003kZ-UT for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:53:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBK5r84t014416 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:53:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXa2v-0003je-6z; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXa28-0003ib-EX for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13032 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXa25-0001hU-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXa24-0001hN-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:09 -0500 Received: from web40304.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.78.83]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXa24-0001gB-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20031220055138.12891.qmail@web40304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.124.240.10] by web40304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:51:38 PST Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:51:38 -0800 (PST) From: Abhishek Mittal Subject: How does router learn ASN ? To: routing-discussion@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-435326933-1071899498=:11701" 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,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --0-435326933-1071899498=:11701 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi All, I have a small query. How does router learn the ASN with respect to IP address while doing the trace. route-views.oregon-ix.net>traceroute cisco.com Translating "cisco.com"...domain server (128.223.32.35) [OK] Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to cisco.com (198.133.219.25) 1 net60-gw.uoregon.edu (128.223.60.1) [AS 3582] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 0.ge-0-0-0.uonet8-gw.uoregon.edu (128.223.2.8) [AS 3582] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 3 eugn-car1-gw.nero.net (207.98.66.11) [AS 3701] 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 4 eugn-core1-gw.nero.net (207.98.64.168) [AS 3701] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec 5 sl-gw26-stk-2-1.sprintlink.net (144.223.56.17) [AS 1239] 12 msec 12 msec 16 msec 6 sl-bb20-stk-8-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.4.114) [AS 1239] 12 msec 16 msec 12 msec 7 sl-bb20-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.99) [AS 1239] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec 8 sl-gw11-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.138) [AS 1239] 20 msec 16 msec 16 msec 9 sl-ciscopsn2-11-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.44.14) [AS 1239] 16 msec 16 msec 12 msec 10 sjck-dirty-gw1.cisco.com (128.107.239.5) [AS 109] 24 msec 24 msec 20 msec 11 sjck-sdf-ciod-gw2.cisco.com (128.107.239.110) [AS 109] 20 msec 20 msec 20 msec 12 * cisco.com (198.133.219.25) [AS 109] 20 msec 20 msec route-views.oregon-ix.net> Thanks & Regards, Abhishek Mittal --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --0-435326933-1071899498=:11701 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Hi All,
 
I have a small query.

How does router learn the ASN with respect to IP address while doing the trace.
 

route-views.oregon-ix.net>traceroute cisco.com
Translating "cisco.com"...domain server (128.223.32.35) [OK]
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to cisco.com (198.133.219.25)
  1 net60-gw.uoregon.edu (128.223.60.1) [AS 3582] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
  2 0.ge-0-0-0.uonet8-gw.uoregon.edu (128.223.2.8) [AS 3582] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
  3 eugn-car1-gw.nero.net (207.98.66.11) [AS 3701] 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec
  4 eugn-core1-gw.nero.net (207.98.64.168) [AS 3701] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec
  5 sl-gw26-stk-2-1.sprintlink.net (144.223.56.17) [AS 1239] 12 msec 12 msec 16 msec
  6 sl-bb20-stk-8-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.4.114) [AS 1239] 12 msec 16 msec 12 msec
  7 sl-bb20-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.99) [AS 1239] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec
  8 sl-gw11-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.138) [AS 1239] 20 msec 16 msec 16 msec
  9 sl-ciscopsn2-11-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.44.14) [AS 1239] 16 msec 16 msec 12 msec
 10 sjck-dirty-gw1.cisco.com (128.107.239.5) [AS 109] 24 msec 24 msec 20 msec
 11 sjck-sdf-ciod-gw2.cisco.com (128.107.239.110) [AS 109] 20 msec 20 msec 20 msec
 12&! nbsp; *
    cisco.com (198.133.219.25) [AS 109] 20 msec 20 msec
route-views.oregon-ix.net>
 
Thanks & Regards,
Abhishek Mittal
 

Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --0-435326933-1071899498=:11701-- _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Sat Dec 20 01:38:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13081 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:53:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXa2v-0003je-6z; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXa28-0003ib-EX for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13032 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXa25-0001hU-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXa24-0001hN-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:09 -0500 Received: from web40304.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.78.83]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXa24-0001gB-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20031220055138.12891.qmail@web40304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.124.240.10] by web40304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:51:38 PST Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:51:38 -0800 (PST) From: Abhishek Mittal Subject: How does router learn ASN ? To: routing-discussion@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-435326933-1071899498=:11701" 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,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --0-435326933-1071899498=:11701 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi All, I have a small query. How does router learn the ASN with respect to IP address while doing the trace. route-views.oregon-ix.net>traceroute cisco.com Translating "cisco.com"...domain server (128.223.32.35) [OK] Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to cisco.com (198.133.219.25) 1 net60-gw.uoregon.edu (128.223.60.1) [AS 3582] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 0.ge-0-0-0.uonet8-gw.uoregon.edu (128.223.2.8) [AS 3582] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec 3 eugn-car1-gw.nero.net (207.98.66.11) [AS 3701] 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 4 eugn-core1-gw.nero.net (207.98.64.168) [AS 3701] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec 5 sl-gw26-stk-2-1.sprintlink.net (144.223.56.17) [AS 1239] 12 msec 12 msec 16 msec 6 sl-bb20-stk-8-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.4.114) [AS 1239] 12 msec 16 msec 12 msec 7 sl-bb20-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.99) [AS 1239] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec 8 sl-gw11-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.138) [AS 1239] 20 msec 16 msec 16 msec 9 sl-ciscopsn2-11-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.44.14) [AS 1239] 16 msec 16 msec 12 msec 10 sjck-dirty-gw1.cisco.com (128.107.239.5) [AS 109] 24 msec 24 msec 20 msec 11 sjck-sdf-ciod-gw2.cisco.com (128.107.239.110) [AS 109] 20 msec 20 msec 20 msec 12 * cisco.com (198.133.219.25) [AS 109] 20 msec 20 msec route-views.oregon-ix.net> Thanks & Regards, Abhishek Mittal --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --0-435326933-1071899498=:11701 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Hi All,
 
I have a small query.

How does router learn the ASN with respect to IP address while doing the trace.
 

route-views.oregon-ix.net>traceroute cisco.com
Translating "cisco.com"...domain server (128.223.32.35) [OK]
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to cisco.com (198.133.219.25)
  1 net60-gw.uoregon.edu (128.223.60.1) [AS 3582] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
  2 0.ge-0-0-0.uonet8-gw.uoregon.edu (128.223.2.8) [AS 3582] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
  3 eugn-car1-gw.nero.net (207.98.66.11) [AS 3701] 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec
  4 eugn-core1-gw.nero.net (207.98.64.168) [AS 3701] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec
  5 sl-gw26-stk-2-1.sprintlink.net (144.223.56.17) [AS 1239] 12 msec 12 msec 16 msec
  6 sl-bb20-stk-8-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.4.114) [AS 1239] 12 msec 16 msec 12 msec
  7 sl-bb20-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.99) [AS 1239] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec
  8 sl-gw11-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.138) [AS 1239] 20 msec 16 msec 16 msec
  9 sl-ciscopsn2-11-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.44.14) [AS 1239] 16 msec 16 msec 12 msec
 10 sjck-dirty-gw1.cisco.com (128.107.239.5) [AS 109] 24 msec 24 msec 20 msec
 11 sjck-sdf-ciod-gw2.cisco.com (128.107.239.110) [AS 109] 20 msec 20 msec 20 msec
 12&! nbsp; *
    cisco.com (198.133.219.25) [AS 109] 20 msec 20 msec
route-views.oregon-ix.net>
 
Thanks & Regards,
Abhishek Mittal
 

Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --0-435326933-1071899498=:11701-- _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 22 13:37:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29261 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:37:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYUvN-0003xi-1I; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYUvI-0003xG-5R for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29237 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUvG-0005gl-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUvF-0005ge-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:53 -0500 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUvF-0005gb-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7A032D4814; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:22 -0500 (EST) 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 81998-01-43; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0DA2D4801; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id hBMIaL310713; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:21 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Abhishek Mittal Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: How does router learn ASN ? Message-ID: <20031222133621.E12249@nexthop.com> References: <20031220055138.12891.qmail@web40304.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20031220055138.12891.qmail@web40304.mail.yahoo.com>; from ask4ipnet@yahoo.com on Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 09:51:38PM -0800 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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 09:51:38PM -0800, Abhishek Mittal wrote: > Hi All, > > I have a small query. > > How does router learn the ASN with respect to IP address while doing the trace. In most sane scenarios, a prefix is only originated by a single AS. Every BGP route has an AS Path with the rightmost AS presumed to be the originating AS. Aggregation may break this. :-) -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 13:37:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29277 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYUvn-000431-Lq for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:37:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMIbR4B015474 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:37:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYUvN-0003xi-1I; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYUvI-0003xG-5R for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29237 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUvG-0005gl-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUvF-0005ge-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:53 -0500 Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUvF-0005gb-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7A032D4814; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:22 -0500 (EST) 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 81998-01-43; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0DA2D4801; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id hBMIaL310713; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:21 -0500 From: Jeffrey Haas To: Abhishek Mittal Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: How does router learn ASN ? Message-ID: <20031222133621.E12249@nexthop.com> References: <20031220055138.12891.qmail@web40304.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20031220055138.12891.qmail@web40304.mail.yahoo.com>; from ask4ipnet@yahoo.com on Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 09:51:38PM -0800 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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 09:51:38PM -0800, Abhishek Mittal wrote: > Hi All, > > I have a small query. > > How does router learn the ASN with respect to IP address while doing the trace. In most sane scenarios, a prefix is only originated by a single AS. Every BGP route has an AS Path with the rightmost AS presumed to be the originating AS. Aggregation may break this. :-) -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 29 17:28:15 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15519 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:28:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5qn-0003af-Jl; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5q6-0003aM-4k for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:26:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15450 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:26:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5q3-0000Ys-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:26:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5oK-0000Vv-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:24:28 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org ([209.150.1.230]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5nD-0000QF-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:23:20 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBTMOSRX001386; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:24:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200312292224.hBTMOSRX001386@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Jeffrey Haas cc: Abhishek Mittal , routing-discussion@ietf.org Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: How does router learn ASN ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:21 EST." <20031222133621.E12249@nexthop.com> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:24:28 -0500 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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In message <20031222133621.E12249@nexthop.com>, Jeffrey Haas writes: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 09:51:38PM -0800, Abhishek Mittal wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I have a small query. > > > > How does router learn the ASN with respect to IP address while doing the tr > ace. > > In most sane scenarios, a prefix is only originated by a single AS. Since when is BGP restricted to sane scenarios? :-) > Every BGP route has an AS Path with the rightmost AS presumed to be > the originating AS. > Aggregation may break this. :-) > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies I think the question was in regard to a particular implememtation of traceroute that listed an AS number with each hop. Most host traceroutes that do this refer to a routing registry for the mapping of prefix to AS as the original prtraceroute did. Since the traceroute was from a U.Oregon route views server, the local BGP information is more likely used. Someone that administers those hosts would know better. Curtis _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 29 17:28:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15536 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:28:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5rY-0003d1-HR for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:27:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBTMRmA4013873 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:27:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5qn-0003af-Jl; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5q6-0003aM-4k for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:26:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15450 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:26:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5q3-0000Ys-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:26:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5oK-0000Vv-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:24:28 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org ([209.150.1.230]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5nD-0000QF-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:23:20 -0500 Received: from workhorse.fictitious.org (localhost.fictitious.org [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.fictitious.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBTMOSRX001386; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:24:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org) Message-Id: <200312292224.hBTMOSRX001386@workhorse.fictitious.org> To: Jeffrey Haas cc: Abhishek Mittal , routing-discussion@ietf.org Reply-To: curtis@fictitious.org Subject: Re: How does router learn ASN ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:36:21 EST." <20031222133621.E12249@nexthop.com> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:24:28 -0500 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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In message <20031222133621.E12249@nexthop.com>, Jeffrey Haas writes: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 09:51:38PM -0800, Abhishek Mittal wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I have a small query. > > > > How does router learn the ASN with respect to IP address while doing the tr > ace. > > In most sane scenarios, a prefix is only originated by a single AS. Since when is BGP restricted to sane scenarios? :-) > Every BGP route has an AS Path with the rightmost AS presumed to be > the originating AS. > Aggregation may break this. :-) > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies I think the question was in regard to a particular implememtation of traceroute that listed an AS number with each hop. Most host traceroutes that do this refer to a routing registry for the mapping of prefix to AS as the original prtraceroute did. Since the traceroute was from a U.Oregon route views server, the local BGP information is more likely used. Someone that administers those hosts would know better. Curtis _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Mon Dec 29 17:35:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15669 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:35:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5yY-0003nA-9B; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5xa-0003mA-MX for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15639 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5xY-0000iU-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:34:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5vg-0000gE-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:32:05 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5ts-0000d1-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:30:12 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBTMTbIx010955; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:29:37 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id hBTMTaCE010954; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:29:36 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:29:36 -0800 From: David Meyer To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: Jeffrey Haas , Abhishek Mittal , routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: How does router learn ASN ? Message-ID: <20031229222936.GA10943@1-4-5.net> References: <20031222133621.E12249@nexthop.com> <200312292224.hBTMOSRX001386@workhorse.fictitious.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312292224.hBTMOSRX001386@workhorse.fictitious.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon 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 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> I think the question was in regard to a particular implememtation of >> traceroute that listed an AS number with each hop. Most host >> traceroutes that do this refer to a routing registry for the mapping >> of prefix to AS as the original prtraceroute did. Since the >> traceroute was from a U.Oregon route views server, the local BGP >> information is more likely used. The latter is correct. Dave _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 29 17:35:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15674 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5ye-0003of-9x for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:35:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBTMZ8uV014648 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:35:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5yY-0003nA-9B; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5xa-0003mA-MX for routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15639 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5xY-0000iU-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:34:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5vg-0000gE-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:32:05 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5ts-0000d1-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:30:12 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBTMTbIx010955; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:29:37 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id hBTMTaCE010954; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:29:36 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:29:36 -0800 From: David Meyer To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: Jeffrey Haas , Abhishek Mittal , routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: How does router learn ASN ? Message-ID: <20031229222936.GA10943@1-4-5.net> References: <20031222133621.E12249@nexthop.com> <200312292224.hBTMOSRX001386@workhorse.fictitious.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312292224.hBTMOSRX001386@workhorse.fictitious.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon 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 Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> I think the question was in regard to a particular implememtation of >> traceroute that listed an AS number with each hop. Most host >> traceroutes that do this refer to a routing registry for the mapping >> of prefix to AS as the original prtraceroute did. Since the >> traceroute was from a U.Oregon route views server, the local BGP >> information is more likely used. The latter is correct. Dave _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion