The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Dec> msg00444



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Question of path attributes for MP-REACH-NLRIs

  • From: "Brijesh Kumar" <bkumar@ennovatenetworks.com>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:31:08 -0500
  • Cc: "'mpls@uu.net'" <mpls@UU.NET>
  • Importance: Normal



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Yakov
> Rekhter
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 6:36 PM
> To: Janardan Ramesh
> Cc: 'mpls@uu.net'
> Subject: Re: Question of path attributes for MP-REACH-NLRIs
>
> Ramesh,
>
> >
> >When an MPLS BGP speaker receives an update from
> >a peer, what are the path attributes relevant to the
MP-REACH-NLRIs.
> >
> >Am I right in assuming that AS-Path, MEDISC, NEXTHOP (since it
> >is contained within MP-REACH-NLRI), ATOMIC, AGGREGATOR
> >are not relevant.
>
> What makes your think that AS-Path, MED, ATOMIC, and AGGREGATOR"
> "are not relevant" ?
>
> NEXTHOP is not relevant.

I think the description of the NEXT_HOP issue in multi-protocol
extension RFC isn't very clear.  True that NEXT_HOP path attribute is
not relevant. But the NEXT_HOP (well known, mandatory attribute) has
to be there in the PDU for it to be a valid UPDATE message.

--brijesh
Ennovate Networks Inc.,