Subject: RFC2918 comments

From: Shane Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:45:43 -0400

Hi All,

I have a couple of comments about the route refresh document:

1) There is no defined behavior for a malformed route refresh message. 
Possible solutions could be to send a Cease notification or introducing a
new error code for the route refresh message.

2) From section 4:

   A BGP speaker may send a ROUTE-REFRESH message to its peer only if it
   has received the Route Refresh Capability from its peer.  The <AFI,
   SAFI> carried in such a message should be one of the <AFI, SAFI> that
   the peer has advertised to the speaker at the session establishment
   time via capability advertisement.

   If a BGP speaker receives from its peer a ROUTE-REFRESH message with
   the <AFI, SAFI> that the speaker didn't advertise to the peer at the
   session establishment time via capability advertisement, the speaker
   shall ignore such a message. 

This wording would seem to add the requirement that multiprotocol
capabilities are necessary for route refresh, even for the IPv4 unicast case. 
Adding text to address the special case of IPv4 unicast announced in the
non-multiprotocol fashion would be helpful here.

--
Shane Wright