Subject: issue 25 Next-hop Semantics.

From: "Venu Kumar G - CTD, Chennai." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:21:18 +0530

Hi , 

           I think we should define semantic correctness for I-BGP and E-BGP
(with multiple hops away from the speaker)  peer also apart from the E-BGP
connection with one-hop away from each other.

    The current rfc text  describes

      	"Semantic correctness applies only to the external BGP
             links, and only when the sender and the receiving speaker are
one IP
             hop away from each other. To be semantically correct, the IP
address
             in the NEXT_HOP must not be the IP address of the receiving
speaker,          
             and the NEXT_HOP IP address must either be the sender's IP
address
             (used to establish the BGP session), or the interface
associated with
             the NEXT_HOP IP address must share a common subnet with the
receiving
             BGP speaker. "

       As a first reader, this  text gives understanding that,  I-BGP and
E-BGP (with many hops away) peers MAY  receive a Route with  NEXT-HOP
attribute as "receivinging speaker's IP address", which is actully not true
for all  types  BNP peers( I-BGP and E-BGP).

Thanks &Regards
Venu G.