Subject: [Idr] [Errata Rejected] RFC4456 (3898)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 02:34:46 -0800 (PST)

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC4456,
"BGP Route Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4456&eid=3898

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Gunjan Bansal <[email-masked]>
Date Reported: 2014-02-23
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant (IESG)

Section: 8

Original Text
-------------
ORIGINATOR_ID

   ORIGINATOR_ID is a new optional, non-transitive BGP attribute of Type
   code 9.  This attribute is 4 bytes long and it will be created by an
   RR in reflecting a route.  This attribute will carry the BGP
   Identifier of the originator of the route in the local AS.  A BGP
   speaker SHOULD NOT create an ORIGINATOR_ID attribute if one already
   exists.  A router that recognizes the ORIGINATOR_ID attribute SHOULD
   ignore a route received with its BGP Identifier as the ORIGINATOR_ID.

CLUSTER_LIST

   CLUSTER_LIST is a new, optional, non-transitive BGP attribute of Type
   code 10.  It is a sequence of CLUSTER_ID values representing the
   reflection path that the route has passed.

   When an RR reflects a route, it MUST prepend the local CLUSTER_ID to
   the CLUSTER_LIST.  If the CLUSTER_LIST is empty, it MUST create a new
   one.  Using this attribute an RR can identify if the routing
   information has looped back to the same cluster due to
   misconfiguration.  If the local CLUSTER_ID is found in the
   CLUSTER_LIST, the advertisement received SHOULD be ignored.

Corrected Text
--------------

Notes
-----
Although the guideline exists for the "egress" reflected routes (RR should create ORIGINATOR_ID if none exists, prepend its own ClusterId in CLUSTER_LIST), there is no guideline on how the routes received from iBGP peers be treated if "only one" attribute (ORIGINATOR_ID or CLUSTER_LIST) is present. 
Should such routes be dropped (Considering them as a malformed routes ?)
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
This is a question that should be addressed to the IDR WG.

Any new guideline that results should be considered for publication in an RFC. Technical changes of the type requested are outside the scope of the Errata process.

--------------------------------------
RFC4456 (draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-02)
--------------------------------------
Title               : BGP Route Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)
Publication Date    : April 2006
Author(s)           : T. Bates, E. Chen, R. Chandra
Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
Source              : Inter-Domain Routing
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG