Avoid BGP Best Path Transitions from One External to Another
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Bill Fenner) Yes
(Mark Townsley) Yes
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter) No Objection
Comment (2007-03-08 for -)
If this is to be a PS, the Abstract probably shouldn't be written in the subjunctive tense: "we propose"... "The proposed revision would..."
(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection
Section 4., paragraph 10: > Due to the interaction of route reflection [BGP-RR] and MEDs, the Expand the "MED" acronym. Section 9., paragraph 1: > [BGP] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 > (BGP-4)", draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-26.txt, October 2004. Has been published as RFC4271. -------------------------------------------- The rest are all nits that can be fixed whenever. INTRODUCTION, paragraph 12: > The proposed revision would > help the overall network stability, and more importantly, would > eliminate certain BGP route oscillations in which more than one > external paths from one BGP speaker contribute to the churn. Nit: "Would?" Not "does?" (Also elsewhere in the document.) Section 4., paragraph 1: > and forwarding changes in a network, thus help the overall network > stabilities. Nit: s/stabilities./stability./ Section 4., paragraph 2: > which more than one external paths from one BGP speaker contribute to Nit: s/paths/path/ s/contribute/contributes/