Subject: [Idr] Issue 12a: Editorial changes to port 179

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:02:04 -0400

Alex: 

	Section 8.2.1 was the subject of a lengthy discussion
	prior to creating draft-20. 

	Could you tell me why this change is critical at this time?

Sue Hares

---------------

.2.1 FSM Definition

   BGP MUST maintain a separate FSM for each configured peer, Each BGP
   peer paired in a potential connection unless configured to remain in

Expiration Date September 2003                                 [Page 45]

RFC DRAFT                                                     March 2003

   the idle state, or configured to remain passive, will attempt to  to
   connect to the other.  For the purpose of this discussion, the active
   or connect side of the TCP connection (the side of a TCP connection
   sending the first TCP SYN packet) is called outgoing.  The passive or
   listening side (the sender of the first SYN ACK) is called an incom-
   ing connection (see Section 8.2.1.1 on the terms active and passive
   below).

   A BGP implementation MUST connect to and listen on TCP port 179 for
   incoming connections in addition to trying to connect to peers.  For
   each incoming connection, a state machine MUST be instantiated.
   There exists a period in which the identity of the peer on the other
   end of an incoming connection is known but the BGP identifier is not
   known.  During this time, both an incoming and an outgoing connection
   for the same configured peering may exist. This is referred to as a
   connection collision (see Section 6.8).

   A BGP implementation will have at most one FSM for each configured
   peering plus one FSM for each incoming TCP connection for which the
   peer has not yet been identified. Each FSM corresponds to exactly one
   TCP connection.

   There may be more than one connections between a pair of peers if the
   connections are configured to use a different pair of IP addresses.
   This is referred to as multiple "configured peerings" to the same
   peer.

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:03:39 +0200

Sue-

>         Could you tell me why this change is critical at this time?

It's hard for me to tell from your message which change
you have in mind. Please advise.

Alex

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:03:39 +0200

Sue-

Alex