Subject: RE: issue 65

From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:30:30 -0400

Agree. Perfect, it also addresses the MULTI-PATH issues.

Ben

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 12:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: issue 65
> 
> 
>   65) Rules for Aggregating with MED and NEXT_HOP
>   
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> 
> I would suggest to replace:
> 
>    Routes that have the following attributes shall not be aggregated  
>    unless the corresponding attributes of each route are identical:
>    MULTI_EXIT_DISC, NEXT_HOP.
> 
>    If the aggregation occurs as part of the update process, 
> routes with 
>    different NEXT_HOP values can be aggregated when announced 
> through an
>    external BGP session.
> 
>    Path attributes that have different type codes can not be 
> aggregated
>    together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated,
>    according to the following rules:
> 
> with:
> 
>    Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute SHALL NOT
>    be aggregated. 
> 
>    Path attributes that have different type codes can not be 
> aggregated
>    together. Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated,
>    according to the following rules:
> 
>      NEXT_HOP: When aggregating routes that have different NEXT_HOP
>      attribute, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the aggregated route SHALL
>      identify an interface on the router that performs the 
> aggregation.
> 
> In the absence of objections I am going to make the above change.
> 
> Yakov.
>