### ----------------------------------------------------
### -- Net::BGP
### -- Licenses: Artistic-2.0
### -- Authors: Joelle Maslak
### -- File: rfc/rfc4271.txt
### ----------------------------------------------------
### -- Chunk 5 of 7
 TCP connection (Tcp_CR_Invalid event (Event 15)) will
      be ignored.

      In response to an indication that the TCP connection is
      successfully established (Event 16 or Event 17), the second
      connection SHALL be tracked until it sends an OPEN message.






Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 72]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


      If a valid OPEN message (BGPOpen (Event 19)) is received, and if
      the CollisionDetectEstablishedState optional attribute is TRUE,
      the OPEN message will be checked to see if it collides (Section
      6.8) with any other connection.  If the BGP implementation
      determines that this connection needs to be terminated, it will
      process an OpenCollisionDump event (Event 23).  If this connection
      needs to be terminated, the local system:

        - sends a NOTIFICATION with a Cease,

        - sets the ConnectRetryTimer to zero,

        - deletes all routes associated with this connection,

        - releases all BGP resources,

        - drops the TCP connection,

        - increments the ConnectRetryCounter by 1,

        - (optionally) performs peer oscillation damping if the
          DampPeerOscillations is set to TRUE, and

        - changes its state to Idle.

      If the local system receives a NOTIFICATION message (Event 24 or
      Event 25) or a TcpConnectionFails (Event 18) from the underlying
      TCP, the local system:

        - sets the ConnectRetryTimer to zero,

        - deletes all routes associated with this connection,

        - releases all the BGP resources,

        - drops the TCP connection,

        - increments the ConnectRetryCounter by 1,

        - changes its state to Idle.











Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 73]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


      If the local system receives a KEEPALIVE message (Event 26), the
      local system:

        - restarts its HoldTimer, if the negotiated HoldTime value is
          non-zero, and

        - remains in the Established state.

      If the local system receives an UPDATE message (Event 27), the
      local system:

        - processes the message,

        - restarts its HoldTimer, if the negotiated HoldTime value is
          non-zero, and

        - remains in the Established state.

      If the local system receives an UPDATE message, and the UPDATE
      message error handling procedure (see Section 6.3) detects an
      error (Event 28), the local system:

        - sends a NOTIFICATION message with an Update error,

        - sets the ConnectRetryTimer to zero,

        - deletes all routes associated with this connection,

        - releases all BGP resources,

        - drops the TCP connection,

        - increments the ConnectRetryCounter by 1,

        - (optionally) performs peer oscillation damping if the
          DampPeerOscillations attribute is set to TRUE, and

        - changes its state to Idle.

      In response to any other event (Events 9, 12-13, 20-22), the local
      system:

        - sends a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code Finite State
          Machine Error,

        - deletes all routes associated with this connection,

        - sets the ConnectRetryTimer to zero,



Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 74]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


        - releases all BGP resources,

        - drops the TCP connection,

        - increments the ConnectRetryCounter by 1,

        - (optionally) performs peer oscillation damping if the
          DampPeerOscillations attribute is set to TRUE, and

        - changes its state to Idle.

9.  UPDATE Message Handling

   An UPDATE message may be received only in the Established state.
   Receiving an UPDATE message in any other state is an error.  When an
   UPDATE message is received, each field is checked for validity, as
   specified in Section 6.3.

   If an optional non-transitive attribute is unrecognized, it is
   quietly ignored.  If an optional transitive attribute is
   unrecognized, the Partial bit (the third high-order bit) in the
   attribute flags octet is set to 1, and the attribute is retained for
   propagation to other BGP speakers.

   If an optional attribute is recognized and has a valid value, then,
   depending on the type of the optional attribute, it is processed
   locally, retained, and updated, if necessary, for possible
   propagation to other BGP speakers.

   If the UPDATE message contains a non-empty WITHDRAWN ROUTES field,
   the previously advertised routes, whose destinations (expressed as IP
   prefixes) are contained in this field, SHALL be removed from the
   Adj-RIB-In.  This BGP speaker SHALL run its Decision Process because
   the previously advertised route is no longer available for use.

   If the UPDATE message contains a feasible route, the Adj-RIB-In will
   be updated with this route as follows: if the NLRI of the new route
   is identical to the one the route currently has stored in the Adj-
   RIB-In, then the new route SHALL replace the older route in the Adj-
   RIB-In, thus implicitly withdrawing the older route from service.
   Otherwise, if the Adj-RIB-In has no route with NLRI identical to the
   new route, the new route SHALL be placed in the Adj-RIB-In.

   Once the BGP speaker updates the Adj-RIB-In, the speaker SHALL run
   its Decision Process.






Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 75]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


9.1.  Decision Process

   The Decision Process selects routes for subsequent advertisement by
   applying the policies in the local Policy Information Base (PIB) to
   the routes stored in its Adj-RIBs-In.  The output of the Decision
   Process is the set of routes that will be advertised to peers; the
   selected routes will be stored in the local speaker's Adj-RIBs-Out,
   according to policy.

   The BGP Decision Process described here is conceptual, and does not
   have to be implemented precisely as described, as long as the
   implementations support the described functionality and they exhibit
   the same externally visible behavior.

   The selection process is formalized by defining a function that takes
   the attribute of a given route as an argument and returns either (a)
   a non-negative integer denoting the degree of preference for the
   route, or (b) a value denoting that this route is ineligible to be
   installed in Loc-RIB and will be excluded from the next phase of
   route selection.

   The function that calculates the degree of preference for a given
   route SHALL NOT use any of the following as its inputs: the existence
   of other routes, the non-existence of other routes, or the path
   attributes of other routes.  Route selection then consists of the
   individual application of the degree of preference function to each
   feasible route, followed by the choice of the one with the highest
   degree of preference.

   The Decision Process operates on routes contained in the Adj-RIBs-In,
   and is responsible for:

      - selection of routes to be used locally by the speaker

      - selection of routes to be advertised to other BGP peers

      - route aggregation and route information reduction

   The Decision Process takes place in three distinct phases, each
   triggered by a different event:

      a) Phase 1 is responsible for calculating the degree of preference
         for each route received from a peer.

      b) Phase 2 is invoked on completion of phase 1.  It is responsible
         for choosing the best route out of all those available for each
         distinct destination, and for installing each chosen route into
         the Loc-RIB.



Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 76]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


      c) Phase 3 is invoked after the Loc-RIB has been modified.  It is
         responsible for disseminating routes in the Loc-RIB to each
         peer, according to the policies contained in the PIB.  Route
         aggregation and information reduction can optionally be
         performed within this phase.

9.1.1.  Phase 1: Calculation of Degree of Preference

   The Phase 1 decision function is invoked whenever the local BGP
   speaker receives, from a peer, an UPDATE message that advertises a
   new route, a replacement route, or withdrawn routes.

   The Phase 1 decision function is a separate process,f which completes
   when it has no further work to do.

   The Phase 1 decision function locks an Adj-RIB-In prior to operating
   on any route contained within it, and unlocks it after operating on
   all new or unfeasible routes contained within it.

   For each newly received or replacement feasible route, the local BGP
   speaker determines a degree of preference as follows:

      If the route is learned from an internal peer, either the value of
      the LOCAL_PREF attribute is taken as the degree of preference, or
      the local system computes the degree of preference of the route
      based on preconfigured policy information.  Note that the latter
      may result in formation of persistent routing loops.

      If the route is learned from an external peer, then the local BGP
      speaker computes the degree of preference based on preconfigured
      policy information.  If the return value indicates the route is
      ineligible, the route MAY NOT serve as an input to the next phase
      of route selection; otherwise, the return value MUST be used as
      the LOCAL_PREF value in any IBGP readvertisement.

      The exact nature of this policy information, and the computation
      involved, is a local matter.

9.1.2.  Phase 2: Route Selection

   The Phase 2 decision function is invoked on completion of Phase 1.
   The Phase 2 function is a separate process, which completes when it
   has no further work to do.  The Phase 2 process considers all routes
   that are eligible in the Adj-RIBs-In.







Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 77]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


   The Phase 2 decision function is blocked from running while the Phase
   3 decision function is in process.  The Phase 2 function locks all
   Adj-RIBs-In prior to commencing its function, and unlocks them on
   completion.

   If the NEXT_HOP attribute of a BGP route depicts an address that is
   not resolvable, or if it would become unresolvable if the route was
   installed in the routing table, the BGP route MUST be excluded from
   the Phase 2 decision function.

   If the AS_PATH attribute of a BGP route contains an AS loop, the BGP
   route should be excluded from the Phase 2 decision function.  AS loop
   detection is done by scanning the full AS path (as specified in the
   AS_PATH attribute), and checking that the autonomous system number of
   the local system does not appear in the AS path.  Operations of a BGP
   speaker that is configured to accept routes with its own autonomous
   system number in the AS path are outside the scope of this document.

   It is critical that BGP speakers within an AS do not make conflicting
   decisions regarding route selection that would cause forwarding loops
   to occur.

   For each set of destinations for which a feasible route exists in the
   Adj-RIBs-In, the local BGP speaker identifies the route that has:

      a) the highest degree of preference of any route to the same set
         of destinations, or

      b) is the only route to that destination, or

      c) is selected as a result of the Phase 2 tie breaking rules
         specified in Section 9.1.2.2.

   The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB,
   replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being
   held in the Loc-RIB.  When the new BGP route is installed in the
   Routing Table, care must be taken to ensure that existing routes to
   the same destination that are now considered invalid are removed from
   the Routing Table.  Whether the new BGP route replaces an existing
   non-BGP route in the Routing Table depends on the policy configured
   on the BGP speaker.

   The local speaker MUST determine the immediate next-hop address from
   the NEXT_HOP attribute of the selected route (see Section 5.1.3).  If
   either the immediate next-hop or the IGP cost to the NEXT_HOP (where
   the NEXT_HOP is resolved through an IGP route) changes, Phase 2 Route
   Selection MUST be performed again.




Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 78]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


   Notice that even though BGP routes do not have to be installed in the
   Routing Table with the immediate next-hop(s), implementations MUST
   take care that, before any packets are forwarded along a BGP route,
   its associated NEXT_HOP address is resolved to the immediate
   (directly connected) next-hop address, and that this address (or
   multiple addresses) is finally used for actual packet forwarding.

   Unresolvable routes SHALL be removed from the Loc-RIB and the routing
   table.  However, corresponding unresolvable routes SHOULD be kept in
   the Adj-RIBs-In (in case they become resolvable).

9.1.2.1.  Route Resolvability Condition

   As indicated in Section 9.1.2, BGP speakers SHOULD exclude
   unresolvable routes from the Phase 2 decision.  This ensures that
   only valid routes are installed in Loc-RIB and the Routing Table.

   The route resolvability condition is defined as follows:

      1) A route Rte1, referencing only the intermediate network
         address, is considered resolvable if the Routing Table contains
         at least one resolvable route Rte2 that matches Rte1's
         intermediate network address and is not recursively resolved
         (directly or indirectly) through Rte1.  If multiple matching
         routes are available, only the longest matching route SHOULD be
         considered.

      2) Routes referencing interfaces (with or without intermediate
         addresses) are considered resolvable if the state of the
         referenced interface is up and if IP processing is enabled on
         this interface.

   BGP routes do not refer to interfaces, but can be resolved through
   the routes in the Routing Table that can be of both types (those that
   specify interfaces or those that do not).  IGP routes and routes to
   directly connected networks are expected to specify the outbound
   interface.  Static routes can specify the outbound interface, the
   intermediate address, or both.

   Note that a BGP route is considered unresolvable in a situation where
   the BGP speaker's Routing Table contains no route matching the BGP
   route's NEXT_HOP.  Mutually recursive routes (routes resolving each
   other or themselves) also fail the resolvability check.

   It is also important that implementations do not consider feasible
   routes that would become unresolvable if they were installed in the
   Routing Table, even if their NEXT_HOPs are resolvable using the
   current contents of the Routing Table (an example of such routes



Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 79]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


   would be mutually recursive routes).  This check ensures that a BGP
   speaker does not install routes in the Routing Table that will be
   removed and not used by the speaker.  Therefore, in addition to local
   Routing Table stability, this check also improves behavior of the
   protocol in the network.

   Whenever a BGP speaker identifies a route that fails the
   resolvability check because of mutual recursion, an error message
   SHOULD be logged.

9.1.2.2.  Breaking Ties (Phase 2)

   In its Adj-RIBs-In, a BGP speaker may have several routes to the same
   destination that have the same degree of preference.  The local
   speaker can select only one of these routes for inclusion in the
   associated Loc-RIB.  The local speaker considers all routes with the
   same degrees of preference, both those received from internal peers,
   and those received from external peers.

   The following tie-breaking procedure assumes that, for each candidate
   route, all the BGP speakers within an autonomous system can ascertain
   the cost of a path (interior distance) to the address depicted by the
   NEXT_HOP attribute of the route, and follow the same route selection
   algorithm.

   The tie-breaking algorithm begins by considering all equally
   preferable routes to the same destination, and then selects routes to
   be removed from consideration.  The algorithm terminates as soon as
   only one route remains in consideration.  The criteria MUST be
   applied in the order specified.

   Several of the criteria are described using pseudo-code.  Note that
   the pseudo-code shown was chosen for clarity, not efficiency.  It is
   not intended to specify any particular implementation.  BGP
   implementations MAY use any algorithm that produces the same results
   as those described here.

      a) Remove from consideration all routes that are not tied for
         having the smallest number of AS numbers present in their
         AS_PATH attributes.  Note that when counting this number, an
         AS_SET counts as 1, no matter how many ASes are in the set.

      b) Remove from consideration all routes that are not tied for
         having the lowest Origin number in their Origin attribute.







Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 80]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


      c) Remove from consideration routes with less-preferred
         MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes.  MULTI_EXIT_DISC is only comparable
         between routes learned from the same neighboring AS (the
         neighboring AS is determined from the AS_PATH attribute).
         Routes that do not have the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute are
         considered to have the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value.

         This is also described in the following procedure:

       for m = all routes still under consideration
           for n = all routes still under consideration
               if (neighborAS(m) == neighborAS(n)) and (MED(n) < MED(m))
                   remove route m from consideration

         In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function that returns the
         value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute.  If route n has
         no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest
         possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value (i.e., 0).

         Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function that returns the
         neighbor AS from which the route was received.  If the route is
         learned via IBGP, and the other IBGP speaker didn't originate
         the route, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP
         speaker learned the route.  If the route is learned via IBGP,
         and the other IBGP speaker either (a) originated the route, or
         (b) created the route by aggregation and the AS_PATH attribute
         of the aggregate route is either empty or begins with an
         AS_SET, it is the local AS.

         If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising
         a route into IBGP, then comparison based on the received EBGP
         MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY still be performed.  If an
         implementation chooses to remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC, then the
         optional comparison on MULTI_EXIT_DISC, if performed, MUST be
         performed only among EBGP-learned routes.  The best EBGP-
         learned route may then be compared with IBGP-learned routes
         after the removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute.  If
         MULTI_EXIT_DISC is removed from a subset of EBGP-learned
         routes, and the selected "best" EBGP-learned route will not
         have MULTI_EXIT_DISC removed, then the MULTI_EXIT_DISC must be
         used in the comparison with IBGP-learned routes.  For IBGP-
         learned routes, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC MUST be used in route
         comparisons that reach this step in the Decision Process.
         Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP-learned route in the
         comparison with an IBGP-learned route, then removing the
         MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, and advertising the route has been
         proven to cause route loops.




Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 81]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


      d) If at least one of the candidate routes was received via EBGP,
         remove from consideration all routes that were received via
         IBGP.

      e) Remove from consideration any routes with less-preferred
         interior cost.  The interior cost of a route is determined by
         calculating the metric to the NEXT_HOP for the route using the
         Routing Table.  If the NEXT_HOP hop for a route is reachable,
         but no cost can be determined, then this step should be skipped
         (equivalently, consider all routes to have equal costs).

         This is also described in the following procedure.

         for m = all routes still under consideration
             for n = all routes in still under consideration
                 if (cost(n) is lower than cost(m))
                     remove m from consideration

         In the pseudo-code above, cost(n) is a function that returns
         the cost of the path (interior distance) to the address given
         in the NEXT_HOP attribute of the route.

      f) Remove from consideration all routes other than the route that
         was advertised by the BGP speaker with the lowest BGP
         Identifier value.

      g) Prefer the route received from the lowest peer address.

9.1.3.  Phase 3: Route Dissemination

   The Phase 3 decision function is invoked on completion of Phase 2, or
   when any of the following events occur:

      a) when routes in the Loc-RIB to local destinations have changed

      b) when locally generated routes learned by means outside of BGP
         have changed

      c) when a new BGP speaker connection has been established

   The Phase 3 function is a separate process that completes when it has
   no further work to do.  The Phase 3 Routing Decision function is
   blocked from running while the Phase 2 decision function is in
   process.

   All routes in the Loc-RIB are processed into Adj-RIBs-Out according
   to configured policy.  This policy MAY exclude a route in the Loc-RIB
   from being installed in a particular Adj-RIB-Out.  A route SHALL NOT



Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 82]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


   be installed in the Adj-Rib-Out unless the destination, and NEXT_HOP
   described by this route, may be forwarded appropriately by the
   Routing Table.  If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular
   Adj-RIB-Out, the previously advertised route in that Adj-RIB-Out MUST
   be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2).

   Route aggregation and information reduction techniques (see Section
   9.2.2.1) may optionally be applied.

   Any local policy that results in routes being added to an Adj-RIB-Out
   without also being added to the local BGP speaker's forwarding table
   is outside the scope of this document.

   When the updating of the Adj-RIBs-Out and the Routing Table is
   complete, the local BGP speaker runs the Update-Send process of 9.2.

9.1.4.  Overlapping Routes

   A BGP speaker may transmit routes with overlapping Network Layer
   Reachability Information (NLRI) to another BGP speaker.  NLRI overlap
   occurs when a set of destinations are identified in non-matching
   multiple routes.  Because BGP encodes NLRI using IP prefixes, overlap
   will always exhibit subset relationships.  A route describing a
   smaller set of destinations (a longer prefix) is said to be more
   specific than a route describing a larger set of destinations (a
   shorter prefix); similarly, a route describing a larger set of
   destinations is said to be less specific than a route describing a
   smaller set of destinations.

   The precedence relationship effectively decomposes less specific
   routes into two parts:

      - a set of destinations described only by the less specific route,
        and

      - a set of destinations described by the overlap of the less
        specific and the more specific routes

   The set of destinations described by the overlap represents a portion
   of the less specific route that is feasible, but is not currently in
   use.  If a more specific route is later withdrawn, the set of
   destinations described by the overlap will still be reachable using
   the less specific route.

   If a BGP speaker receives overlapping routes, the Decision Process
   MUST consider both routes based on the configured acceptance policy.
   If both a less and a more specific route are accepted, then the
   Decision Process MUST install, in Loc-RIB, either both the less and



Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 83]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


   the more specific routes or aggregate the two routes and install, in
   Loc-RIB, the aggregated route, provided that both routes have the
   same value of the NEXT_HOP attribute.

   If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include
   all ASes used to form the aggregate in an AS_SET, or add the
   ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route.  This attribute is now
   primarily informational.  With the elimination of IP routing
   protocols that do not support classless routing, and the elimination
   of router and host implementations that do not support classless
   routing, there is no longer a need to de-aggregate.  Routes SHOULD
   NOT be de-aggregated.  In particular, a route that carries the
   ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT be de-aggregated.  That is, the
   NLRI of this route cannot be more specific.  Forwarding along such a
   route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only
   ASes listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route.

9.2.  Update-Send Process

   The Update-Send process is responsible for advertising UPDATE
   messages to all peers.  For example, it distributes the routes chosen
   by the Decision Process to other BGP speakers, which may be located
   in either the same autonomous system or a neighboring autonomous
   system.

   When a BGP speaker receives an UPDATE message from an internal peer,
   the receiving BGP speaker SHALL NOT re-distribute the routing
   information contained in that UPDATE message to other internal peers
   (unless the speaker acts as a BGP Route Reflector [RFC2796]).

   As part of Phase 3 of the route selection process, the BGP speaker
   has updated its Adj-RIBs-Out.  All newly installed routes and all
   newly unfeasible routes for which there is no replacement route SHALL
   be advertised to its peers by means of an UPDATE message.

   A BGP speaker SHOULD NOT advertise a given feasible BGP route from
   its Adj-RIB-Out if it would produce an UPDATE message containing the
   same BGP route as was previously advertised.

   Any routes in the Loc-RIB marked as unfeasible SHALL be removed.
   Changes to the reachable destinations within its own autonomous
   system SHALL also be advertised in an UPDATE message.

   If, due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see
   Section 4), a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP
   speaker MUST not advertise the route to its peers and MAY choose to
   log an error locally.




Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 84]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


9.2.1.  Controlling Routing Traffic Overhead

   The BGP protocol constrains the amount of routing traffic (that is,
   UPDATE messages), in order to limit both the link bandwidth needed to
   advertise UPDATE messages and the processing power needed by the
   Decision Process to digest the information contained in the UPDATE
   messages.

9.2.1.1.  Frequency of Route Advertisement

   The parameter MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer determines the
   minimum amount of time that must elapse between an advertisement
   and/or withdrawal of routes to a particular destination by a BGP
   speaker to a peer.  This rate limiting procedure applies on a per-
   destination basis, although the value of
   MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer is set on a per BGP peer basis.

   Two UPDATE messages sent by a BGP speaker to a peer that advertise
   feasible routes and/or withdrawal of unfeasible routes to some common
   set of destinations MUST be separated by at least
   MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer.  This can only be achieved by
   keeping a separate timer for each common set of destinations.  This
   would be unwarranted overhead.  Any technique that ensures that the
   interval between two UPDATE messages sent from a BGP speaker to a
   peer that advertise feasible routes and/or withdrawal of unfeasible
   routes to some common set of destinations will be at least
   MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer, and will also ensure that a
   constant upper bound on the interval is acceptable.

   Since fast convergence is needed within an autonomous system, either
   (a) the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for internal peers
   SHOULD be shorter than the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used
   for external peers, or (b) the procedure describe in this section
   SHOULD NOT apply to routes sent to internal peers.

   This procedure does not limit the rate of route selection, but only
   the rate of route advertisement.  If new routes are selected multiple
   times while awaiting the expiration of
   MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer, the last route selected SHALL be
   advertised at the end of MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer.

9.2.1.2.  Frequency of Route Origination

   The parameter MinASOriginationIntervalTimer determines the minimum
   amount of time that must elapse between successive advertisements of
   UPDATE messages that report changes within the advertising BGP
   speaker's own autonomous systems.




Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 85]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


9.2.2.  Efficient Organization of Routing Information

   Having selected the routing information it will advertise, a BGP
   speaker may avail itself of several methods to organize this
   information in an efficient manner.

9.2.2.1.  Information Reduction

   Information reduction may imply a reduction in granularity of policy
   control - after information is collapsed, the same policies will
   apply to all destinations and paths in the equivalence class.

   The Decision Process may optionally reduce the amount of information
   that it will place in the Adj-RIBs-Out by any of the following
   methods:

      a) Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI):

         Destination IP addresses can be represented as IP address
         prefixes.  In cases where there is a correspondence between the
         address structure and the systems under control of an
         autonomous system administrator, it will be possible to reduce
         the size of the NLRI carried in the UPDATE messages.

      b) AS_PATHs:

         AS path information can be represented as ordered AS_SEQUENCEs
         or unordered AS_SETs.  AS_SETs are used in the route
         aggregation algorithm described in Section 9.2.2.2.  They
         reduce the size of the AS_PATH information by listing each AS
         number only once, regardless of how many times it may have
         appeared in multiple AS_PATHs that were aggregated.

         An AS_SET implies that the destinations listed in the NLRI can
         be reached through paths that traverse at least some of the
         constituent autonomous systems.  AS_SETs provide sufficient
         information to avoid routing information looping; however,
         their use may prune potentially feasible paths because such
         paths are no longer listed individually in the form of
         AS_SEQUENCEs.  In practice, this is not likely to be a problem
         because once an IP packet arrives at the edge of a group of
         autonomous systems, the BGP speaker is likely to have more
         detailed path information and can distinguish individual paths
         from destinations.







Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 86]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


9.2.2.2.  Aggregating Routing Information

   Aggregation is the process of combining the characteristics of
   several different routes in such a way that a single route can be
   advertised.  Aggregation can occur as part of the Decision Process to
   reduce the amount of routing information that will be placed in the
   Adj-RIBs-Out.

   Aggregation reduces the amount of information that a BGP speaker must
   store and exchange with other BGP speakers.  Routes can be aggregated
   by applying the following procedure, separately, to path attributes
   of the same type and to the Network Layer Reachability Information.

   Routes that have different MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes SHALL NOT be
   aggregated.

   If the aggregated route has an AS_SET as the first element in its
   AS_PATH attribute, then the router that originates the route SHOULD
   NOT advertise the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute with this route.

   Path attributes that have different type codes cannot be aggregated
   together.  Path attributes of the same type code may be aggregated,
   according to the following rules:

      NEXT_HOP:
         When aggregating routes that have different NEXT_HOP
         attributes, the NEXT_HOP attribute of the aggregated route
         SHALL identify an interface on the BGP speaker that performs
         the aggregation.

      ORIGIN attribute:
         If at least one route among routes that are aggregated has
         ORIGIN with the value INCOMPLETE, then the aggregated route
         MUST have the ORIGIN attribute with the value INCOMPLETE.
         Otherwise, if at least one route among routes that are
         aggregated has ORIGIN with the value EGP, then the aggregated
         route MUST have the ORIGIN attribute with the value EGP.  In
         all other cases,, the value of the ORIGIN attribute of the
         aggregated route is IGP.

      AS_PATH attribute:
         If routes to be aggregated have identical AS_PATH attributes,
         then the aggregated route has the same AS_PATH attribute as
         each individual route.

         For the purpose of aggregating AS_PATH attributes, we model
         each AS within the AS_PATH attribute as a tuple <type, value>,
         where "type" identifies a type of the path segment the AS



Rekhter, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 87]

RFC 4271                         BGP-4                      January 2006


         belongs to (e.g., AS_SEQUENCE, AS_SET), and "value" identifies
         the AS number.  If the routes to be aggregated have different
         AS_PATH attributes, then the aggregated AS_PATH attribute SHALL
         satisfy all of the following conditions:

           - all tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE in the aggregated AS_PATH
             SHALL appear in all of the AS_PATHs in the initial set of
             routes to be aggregated.

           - all tuples of type AS_SET in the aggregated AS_PATH SHALL
             appear in at least one of the AS_PATHs in the initial set
             (they may appear as either AS_SET or AS_SEQUENCE types).

           - for any tuple X of type AS_SEQUENCE in the aggregated
             AS_PATH, which precedes tuple Y in the aggregated AS_PATH,
             X precedes Y in each AS_PATH in the initial set, which
             contains Y, regardless of the type of Y.

           - No tuple of type AS_SET with the same value SHALL appear
             more than once in the aggregated AS_PATH.

           - Multiple tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE with the same value may
             appear in the aggregated AS_PATH only when adjacent to
             another tuple of the same type and value.

         An implementation may choose any algorithm that conforms to
         these rules.  At a minimum, a conformant implementation SHALL
         be able to perform the following algorithm that meets all of
         the above conditions:

           - determine the longest leading sequence of tuples (as
             defined above) common