Subject: issue 11.2

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:43:40 -0700

11.2) Rules for routes from Loc-RIB to Adj-RIB-Out - Section 2
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      
Folks I wonder whether the following text would be enough to
close this issue:

   In the context of this document we assume that a BGP speaker 
   advertises to its peers (other BGP speakers which it
   communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it
   itself uses (in this context a BGP speaker is said to "use" a BGP
   route if it is the most preferred BGP route and is used in 
   forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document.
   
Yakov.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:52:54 -0400

Yakov,

>    communicates with) in neighboring ASs only those routes that it

Why only neighboring as's?

>    forwarding). All other cases are outside the scope of this document.

Are we specifically trying to say that the process of injecting
a route into bgp is outside the scope of the bgp protocol document?

If not, the parenthesized text needs to be tweaked.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:17:44 -0400

Yakov,

> a route into bgp is outside the scope of the bgp protocol document?

Its been pointed out to me that this may be a case of having the
"route redistribution question" discussed again.  If route origination
is clearly covered in the yet-to-be-released draft, this is probably cool.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: "Michael C. Cambria" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:02:58 -0400

> a route into bgp is outside the scope of the bgp protocol document?

Doesn't injecting a route into BGP make that route a BGP route?  The 
route now lives in Loc-RIB, and other peers will see it as a BGP route, 
with attributes (e.g. Origin=IGP or Origin=Incomplete, depending on how 
the route was "injected" into BGP.)

MikeC

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:35 -0400

Michael,

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Michael C. Cambria wrote:
> Doesn't injecting a route into BGP make that route a BGP route?

If it does, then there's no issue and I'm overly hung up about the
words.  I typically think of a bgp route as one that has come from
BGP.  When you inject a route, you're taking a non-bgp route and
redistributing it.

> The 

Its the interaction between Loc-Rib and our documented process in 9.4
that bothers me.  9.4 says that we put a route through the decision
process - logically as if we had a "routing table peer".  However,
this route may depend on what BGP would chose as its best route.
Potentially a circular dependency.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:48:31 -0700

Friday, October 18, 2002, 2:17:44 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
[...]
> is clearly covered in the yet-to-be-released draft, this is probably cool.

BTW, is there anyone maintaining the list of documents
that the WG should work on?

Alex

---

From: "Michael C. Cambria" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:17:43 -0400

> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Michael C. Cambria wrote:

[deleted]

 > process - logically as if we had a "routing table peer".

I read 9.4 as implying an Adj_Rib_in for locally originated routes (e.g.
via network or redistribute commands).  This is how I read what you
refer to above as a logical "routing table peer".

What to set the attributes to are covered in -17 (plus the resolved
issues list being kept.)  At this point, don't we have an 'Adj-Rib-In' 
on which section 9.1 can be invoked?

  > However,

I don't see this.  What am I missing?  How I understand things is 
described below:

Using a (logical) Adj-Rib-In for locally originated routes, you should 
be able to invoke the decision process as if an UPDATE was received.  I 
conceed that I am doing some handwaving.  Reading 9.1.1 literally, one 
wouldn't calculate a degress of preference at all (i.e. invoke phase 1) 
since no UPDATE was received.  The text in this section also doesn't 
mention anything about locally originated routes, while explicitly 
describing what to do for both internal and external peers.

That said, even though no mention in 9.1.1 of locally originated routes 
is made, the entire section allows for "local policy" to determine the 
degree of preference.  For example, locally injected routes are set to 
degree of preference of 'x'.  The value for 'x' can be hardcoded or user 
configured, or whatever.

Phase 2 starts from there.  The "best" BGP route, locally originated or 
from a real peer (internal or external) is chosen.  This makes it to 
Loc-Rib.

Yakov's proposed text takes care of phase 3.  As far as the scope of the 
draft is concerned, if the Loc-Rib route is used for forwarding, the 
route can be advertised to a peer.

MikeC

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:46:40 -0400

> that the WG should work on?

Were we supposed to do that?  :-)

I remember 1) update 1772, 2) update RR and Confed re impact on route
decision rules, 3) new BGP multipath document.  The 1772 update would
probably need to be a complete rewrite.

Did I miss any.

Its much easier to just say "put it in another document" and forget
about it.  :-)

Curtis

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:36:20 -0700

Jeff,

> a route into bgp is outside the scope of the bgp protocol document?

There is some text in 9.4 on the subject of originating BGP routes.
In general redistribution of non-BGP routes (e.g., IGP routes)
into BGP is clearly outside the scope of the base spec (we've been
through this more than once).

> If not, the parenthesized text needs to be tweaked.

With the above in mind, do you still see the need for the
parenthesized text needs to be tweaked ? If yes, please
proposed the replacement.

Yakov.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:40:26 -0700

Jeff,

> BGP.  When you inject a route, you're taking a non-bgp route and

and thus it becomes a BGP route.

yakov.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:44:25 -0700

> Its much easier to just say "put it in another document" and forget

This WG would never do this, would it? ;)

I guess we have to ask Andrew another favor :)
Andrew, would it be possible to have such a list in
your document?

Also, I'd like to suggest that the contents of this list
is reflected in the proposed WG charter.

Thanks!

Alex

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:51:10 -0700

> Andrew, would it be possible to have such a list in

Done.  Added in Appendix A of the forthcomming v1.4 edition.

Andrew