Shepherd's review - G3 Editorial class: Issues 21-30

[suehares]

G3-21a Editorial, Section 2.9.3, IP Prefix definition.

Why-1: Text clarity and English Grammar.
Why-2: Ignored bits are typically recommended to be ignored upon reception and zero upon transmission.
Old Text/
- IP Prefix: IPv4 or IPv6 prefix (based on the AFI). A variable
size field that contains the most significant octets of the
prefix, i.e., 0 octet for prefix length 0, 1 octet for prefix
length 1 to 8, 2 octets for prefix length 9 to 16, 3 octets for
prefix length 17 up to 24, 4 octets for prefix length 25 up to
32, and so on. Last octet has enough trailing bits to make the
end of the field fall on an octet boundary. Note that the
value of the trailing bits is irrelevant. The size of the
field MUST be less than or equal to 4 for IPv4 (AFI=1) and less
than or equal to 16 for IPv6 (AFI=2). /

New text: /
- IP Prefix: IPv4 or IPv6 prefix (based on the AFI). A variable
size field that contains the most significant octets of the
prefix. For example, the following lengths are used for
IPv4 prefixes:
* 0 octet for prefix length 0,
* 1 octet for prefix lengths 1 to 8,
* 2 octets for prefix lengths 9 to 16,
* 3 octets for prefix lengths 17 up to 24, and
* 4 octets for prefix lengths 25 up to 32.
The last octet has enough trailing bits so the
end of the field falls upon an octet boundary.
The value of the trailing bits is irrelevant, and
these bits must be ignored upon reception.
It is recommended these bits are zero upon
transmission. The length MUST be less than or
equal to 4 for IPv4 (AFI=1) and less
than or equal to 16 for IPv6 (AFI=2).
/

G3-21b - Editorial section 2.10

Why: All of the changes below are improvements in English sentence grammar
that clarifies the existing meaning of the text.

Old Text:/
Example: a multi-domain network is designed
as Access-Core-Access.
/
New text:/
For example consider a multi-domain network
is designed as Access-Core-Access.
/
Old text:/
As described in Section
2.5 and Appendix B.2, BGP Color Extended-Community is used to
automate the CAR route resolution.
/

New text:/
As the procedures describe in section 2.5, and the example illustrates
in Appendix B.2, BGP Color Extended Community (Color-EC) is used to automate
the BGP CAR route Resolution.
/

Old text:/
For requirement 2, where CAR routes traverse across different color
domains, LCM-EC is used to carry the local color mapping for the NLRI
color in other color domains as already described in Section 2.8 and
Appendix B.3. /

New Text :/
For requirement 2, where CAR routes traverse across different color
domains, LCM-EC is used to carry the local color mapping for the NLRI
color in other color domains. The procedures for LCM-EC are described
in Section 2.8 and an example is given in Appendix B.3. /

Old text:/
Both LCM-EC and BGP Color Extended-Community may be present at the
same time with a BGP CAR route. Example: BGP CAR route (E, C1) from
color domain D1, with LCM-EC C2 in color domain D2, may also carry
Color-EC C3 and next hop N in a transit network domain within D2
where C2 is being resolved via an available intra-domain intent C3
(Appendix B.2 and Appendix B.3 combined). /

New Text:/
Both LCM-EC and Color-EC [RFC9012] may be present at the
same time with a BGP CAR route. For example, BGP CAR route (E, C1) from
color domain D1, with LCM-EC C2 in color domain D2, may also carry
Color-EC C3 and next hop N in a transit network domain within D2
where C2 is being resolved via an available intra-domain intent C3.
(See the detailed example in the combination of Appendix B.2 and
Appendix B.3). /

G3-21c: Section 2.11 Error handling, paragraph 7

Old Text:/
Transparent propagation of unrecognized NLRI type:

• Key length allows unrecognized route types to transit through RR
  transparently without a software upgrade. Such RR does not need
  to interpret key portion of NLRI and works on opaque key of given
  length. An implementation SHOULD provide a knob that controls the
  RR unrecognized route type propagation behavior and possibly at
  granularity of route type values allowed. This gives ability to
  operator to allow specific route type transparent reflection based
  on client speaker support.
  /

New text: /
Transparent propagation of unrecognized NLRI type:

• Key length allows unrecognized route types to transit through RR
  transparently without a software upgrade. The RR receiving
  such routes does not need to interpret key portion of NLRI
  and works on opaque key of given length.
  • An implementation SHOULD provide a knob that controls the
    RR unrecognized route type propagation behavior at the
    granularity of route type values allowed. This knob gives ability to
    operator to allow specific route type transparent reflection based
    on client speaker support.
    /

Issue: Unclear what "such" and "this" in a procedural statement.

G3-22 - Section 3, paragraph 1

Old text:/
An ingress PE (or ASBR) E1 automatically steers a C-colored service
route V/v from E2 onto an (E2, C) color-aware path. If several such
paths exist, a preference scheme is used to select the best path:
E.g. IGP Flex-Algo first then SR Policy then BGP CAR. /

New text:/
An ingress PE (or ASBR) E1 automatically steers a C-colored service
route V/v from E2 onto an (E2, C) color-aware path. If several such
paths exist, then a preference scheme is used to select the best path.
One example of a preference scheme is: IGP Flex-Algo first then
SR Policy, followed by BGP CAR. /

Why: The "E.G." does with a semi-colon leads to an unclear interpretation.
Please review my text to see if it matches your intended meaning.

G3-23 - section 4, paragraph 1

Old text:/
PE and BRs may support filtering of CAR routes, for instance to only
accept routes of locally configured colors. /
New text:/
PE and BRs may support the filtering of CAR routes. For instance, the
filtering may only accept routes of locally configured colors.
/

why: English text clarity. ", for instance" creates a complex sentence
where two simple sentences provide clarity.

G3-24 - section 4 - add "EC" - Extended Communities

based on text like this, it would be good to add "EC" to your abbreviations in
section 1.1.

Text as example:/
RTC [RFC4684] may also be applied to the CAR SAFI, where Route Target
ECs [RFC4360] can be used to constrain distribution of CAR routes.
RT assignment may be via user policy. For example an RT value can be
assigned to all routes of a specific color. /

Note: No change to the text in section 4.1.

G3-25: Section 4.1 - Clarity in example

Old text:/

• BGP CAR route (E2, C1) advertised by E2 is not unconditionally
  distributed beyond a certain point (e.g., B). /

New text: /

• BGP CAR route (E2, C1) advertised by E2 is not unconditionally
  distributed beyond a certain point (Peer B in the above example). /

why: Clarity of where "B" is.

G3-26: Section 5, English edits.

Old text:/
Figure 2 provides an ultra-scale reference topology. /

New text:/
Figure 2 in section 5.1 provides an ultra-scale reference topology.
Section 5.1 provides a description of this topology./

Old text:/
Section 5.3 analyses the scaling properties of each model. /
New text:/
Section 5.3 analyses the theoretical scaling properties of each model.
/

G3-27: Sections 5.2.1-5.2.3 - formatting issues.

G3-27a
Editorial suggestion for 5.2.1 - items #3, #4, and #5.
Old text:/
3. E1 receives BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 121 with label 168002.
1. Let's assume E1 selects that path.
/
New text:
3. E1 receives BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 121 with label 168002.
Let's assume E1 selects that path.
/

You can either put a dash or just intent the comment under each number.

G3-27b: Section 5.2.2, items #3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
Editorial change: remove numbers in indent. Use blank if single line (3,5, 6)
and uses dashes if 3 lines (7, 9)

G3-27c: Fix to Section 5.2.2 on item 4.
Old text:/
5. 451 advertises BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 to Transport RR
T-RR2, which reflects it to T-RR1, which reflects it to 121.
/
New text:
4. 451 advertises BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 to Transport RR
T-RR2, which reflects it to Transport RR T-RR1, which reflects it to 121.
/

Why: It is unclear that T-RR1 is a RR.

**G3-27d: Fix to indent format in 5.2.3 in items #6, 7, 8, and 9. **
Change 6, 7, 8 from "1." to space.
Change 9 to dashes (or leave as numbers)

G3-28: Section 5.3 - Two Edits

G3-28a: Section 5.3:
In either the title or the first line you need to indicate this is a
theoretical analysis.

G3-28b: section 5.3 - Run on sentence (grammar).
Old text:/
- Whether next-hop self or unchanged at 121, 341's dataplane
scales with (451,C) where there may be thousands of 451's and 5
C's hence well under the 1M MPLS dataplane. /
New text:/
- Whether next-hop self or unchanged at 121, 341's dataplane
scales with (451,C) where there may be thousands of 451's and 5
C's. Therefore, this scaling is well under the 1M MPLS dataplane limit. /

G3-29: Section 5.4

Old text:
/benefits for the models in Section 5.2/
New text:
/benefits for the theoretical models in Section 5.2/

G3-30: Section 5.5.2

Old text: /

• For example, assume a node E2' paired with E2 above. /

New text: /

• For example, assume a node E2' paired with E2 above (see figure 2).
  /
  Old text:/
• This design provides a convergence and recursive resolution
  benefit on an ingress PE or ABR similar to the egress ABR case in
  the previous section. But its applicability is limited to cases
  where the constraints above can be met. /
  New text: /
• This design provides a convergence and recursive resolution
  benefit on an ingress PE or ABR similar to the egress ABR case in
  the previous section (section 5.5.1). But its applicability is limited to cases
  where the constraints above can be met. /

why: Clarity of references "above" and "previous section".

[suehares]

G3-21a: Section 2.9.2 (IP Prefix Definition) - Review -07 + -08 txt

-08-status: Resolved, closed
-07-status: Not resolved. No changes from -06 text.
Why-1: Clarity of text and English Grammar.
Why-2: Ignored bits are typically expressed as ignored upon reception and zero-filled upon transmission.

-07 text:/
- IP Prefix: IPv4 or IPv6 prefix (based on the AFI). A variable
size field that contains the most significant octets of the
prefix, i.e., 0 octet for prefix length 0, 1 octet for prefix
length 1 to 8, 2 octets for prefix length 9 to 16, 3 octets for
prefix length 17 up to 24, 4 octets for prefix length 25 up to
32, and so on. Last octet has enough trailing bits to make the
end of the field fall on an octet boundary. Note that the
value of the trailing bits is irrelevant. The size of the
field MUST be less than or equal to 4 for IPv4 (AFI=1) and less
than or equal to 16 for IPv6 (AFI=2)./
New text:/
- IP Prefix: IPv4 or IPv6 prefix (based on the AFI). A variable
size field that contains the most significant octets of the
prefix. The format of this field for an IPv4 address is:
- 0 octet for prefix length of 0,
- 1 octet for prefix length of 1 up to 8,
- 2 octets for prefix length of 9 up to 16,
- 3 octets for prefix length of 17 up to 24, and
- 4 octets for prefix length of 25 up to 32.
The format for this field for an IPv6 address follows the
same pattern for prefix lengths of 1-128 (octets 1-16).
The last octet has enough trailing bits to make the
end of the field stops on an octet boundary. Note that the
value of the trailing bits is irrelevant. The trailing bits
are ignored on reception and set to zero on transmission.
The size of the field MUST be less than or equal to 4 for
IPv4 (AFI=1) and less than or equal to 16 for IPv6 (AFI=2)./

[suehares]

G3-21b: Section 2.10 - Review of -07 Text

-08 status: Resolved, closed
-07 Status: Not resolved,
Why-1: English Grammar changes for clear sentences.
Why-2: Text needs to clearly differentiate between normative procedures versus the examples in appendices.

Text changes between -06:
Text in -06:/ As described in
Section 2.5 and Appendix B.2, BGP Color Extended-Community is used to
automate the CAR route resolution./
Text in -07:/ As described in
Section 2.5 and Appendix B.2, BGP Color-EC is used to automate the
CAR route resolution in this case./

Suggested change to -07: /
As the procedures describe in
Section 2.5, and the example illustrates in Appendix B.2, BGP Color-EC is
used to automate the BGP CAR route resolution in this case./

Changes suggested

Change 1:
text in -07:/ Example: a multi-domain network is designed
as Access-Core-Access. /
New text:/ For example, consider a multi-domain network is
designed as Access-Core-Access./

Change-2:
text in -07:/ For requirement 2, where CAR routes traverse across different color
domains, LCM-EC is used to carry the local color mapping for the NLRI
color in other color domains as already described in Section 2.8 and
Appendix B.3./

New text:/ For requirement 2, where CAR routes traverse across different color
domains, LCM-EC is used to carry the local color mapping for the NLRI
color in other color domains. This procedures for are described in Section 2.8,
and an example is given in Appendix B.3./

Change-3:
Note: The changes are in bold for clarity only. The changes should be in bold in final text.

-07 text:/Example: BGP CAR route (E, C1) from color domain D1,
with LCM-EC C2 in color domain D2, may also carry Color-EC C3 and
next hop N in a transit network domain within D2 where C2 is being
resolved via an available intra-domain intent C3 (Appendix B.2 and
Appendix B.3 combined)./

New text:/For example, a BGP CAR route (E,C1) from color domain D1,
with LCM-EC C2 in color domain D2, may also carry Color-EC C3 and
next hop N in a transit network domain within D2 where C2 is being
resolved via an available intra-domain intent C3 (See the detailed
example in the combination of Appendix B.2 and Appendix B.3)./

[suehares]

G3-21c Section 2.11, paragraph 7, (Error Handling) - Review of -07 text

08-Status: Resolved, closed
07-Status: Not Resolved, Required for publication
Why-1: Unclear what "such" and "this" are in an error handling procedural statement
Why-2: Clear statement of Error handling Configuration knobs is important.

Text highlighted to indicate "such" and "this" in -07 text.
-07 text:/

• Key length allows unrecognized route types to transit through RR
  transparently without a software upgrade. Such RR does not need
  to interpret key portion of NLRI and works on opaque key of given
  length. An implementation SHOULD provide a knob that controls the
  RR unrecognized route type propagation behavior and possibly at
  granularity of route type values allowed. This gives ability to
  operator to allow specific route type transparent reflection based
  on client speaker support./
  New-text:/
• Key length allows unrecognized route types to transit through RR
  transparently without a software upgrade. The RR receiving
  unrecognized route types does not need to interpret the key portion
  of an NLRI and handles the NRLI as an opaque value of a specific length.
  An implementation SHOULD provide a knob that controls the
  RR unrecognized route type propagation behavior and possibly at
  the granularity of route type values allowed. This configuration knob
  gives the operator the ability to allow specific route types to be
  transparently passed through RRs based on client speaker support./

[suehares]

G3-22 Section 3, paragraph 1 - Review of -07 and -08 text

-08-Status: Resolved, closed
-07-Status: Not Resolved
Next steps: Discussion with the editors.
Why: It is necessary to indicate the default preference scheme versus the possible preference scheme.
Note: Based on our discussions, I understood there to be a default preference scheme and a configuration knob to allow other preference schemes (see text in bold-italics). If this is inaccurate, adjust the text.

-07-text:/ If several such paths exist, a preference scheme is
used to select the best path: e.g. IGP Flex-Algo first then SR
Policy then BGP CAR./

-new-text:/ If several such paths exist, a preference scheme is
used to select the best path. The default preference scheme is
IGP Flex-Algo first, then SR Policy, followed by BGP CAR.
A configuration knob may be used to adjust the default preference
scheme, but the operators must guarantee the same preference
scheme is used through-out connected domains.

DR# We updated it as above. But did not mandate the same preference to be configured. While it is logical and expected, but not mandatory.

Sue# This choice is fine with me.

[suehares]

G3-23: Section 4, paragraph 1

-08-status: Resolved
-07-status: Not resolved
Why: Clarity of English text. The phrase "for instance" within the sentence creates a complex sentence. The use of 2 simple sentences provides clear text.

-07 text:/
PE and BRs may support filtering of CAR routes, for instance to only
accept routes of locally configured colors./
-New text:/
PE and BRs may support the filtering of CAR routes. For instance, the
filtering may only accept routes of locally configured colors./

[suehares]

G3-24: Section 4.0 - Add EC - Review of -07 text

Status: Resolved, closed

[suehares]

G3-25: Section 4.1 - Clarity in Example

Status: Not Resolved

G3-25a: Section 4.1

-07 text:/

• BGP CAR route (E2, C1) advertised by E2 is not unconditionally
  distributed beyond a certain point (e.g., B)/
  New text:/
• BGP CAR route (E2, C1) advertised by E2 is not unconditionally
  distributed beyond a certain point (Peer B in the above example). /

G3-25b: Section 4.1 - Missing Periods in sentences.

Status: Not resolved

-07 text:/

• E1 subscribes to (E2, C1) by advertising a filter route F (E2, C1)
  to its upstream peer A
• If A has (E2, C1) in its BGP RIB, it will advertise (E2, C1) to E1
• If A does not have (E2, C1), it will advertise F (E2, C1) to its
  peer B
• B will advertise (E2, C1) to A, which will distribute it to E1/

New text:/

• E1 subscribes to (E2, C1) by advertising a filter route F (E2, C1)
  to its upstream peer A.
• If A has (E2, C1) in its BGP RIB, it will advertise (E2, C1) to E1.
• If A does not have (E2, C1), it will advertise F (E2, C1) to its
  peer B.
• B will advertise (E2, C1) to A, which will distribute it to E1./

[suehares]

G3-26: Section 5 formatting issues - Review of -07 text

-08-status: resolved, closed
-07-status: Not resolved

Edit-1:
-07 text:/
Figure 2 provides an ultra-scale reference topology. /
New text:/
Figure 2 in Section 5.1 provides an ultra-scale reference topology.
Section 5.1 describes this topology./

Edit-2
-07 text:/Section 5.3 analyses the
scaling properties of each model. /
New text:/ Section 5.3 analyses the
theoretical scaling properties of each model. /

[suehares]

G3-27: Sections 5.2.1-5.2.3 formatting issues - Review of -07 Text

-08-Status: Resolved 27a, 27b, 27d. Left unresolved 27c.
-08-Next step: Discuss ordering + get 21c resolved

G3-27c: Fix to 5.2.2.2 on item 4

Why: It is unclear that T-RR1 is a transport RR.

-07 text:/
4. 451 advertises BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 to Transport RR
T-RR2, which reflects it to T-RR1, which reflects it to 121./
New text:/
4. 451 advertises BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 to Transport RR
T-RR2, which reflects it to Transport RR T-RR1, which reflects it to 121./

Resolved issues

**-08-Status: G3-27a, G3-27b, and G3-27D resolved, closed
-07-Status:: Not resolved. This includes all of G3-27a, G3-27b, G3-27c, and G3-27d.
Note: There are 4 sub-sections to these formatting issues

G3-27a: Section 5.2.1

Why: English grammar does not commonly use a number ("1") for a single line. Instead, a single intent is used.
Technical comment: I believe this can be easily changed in the xml.

-07 text:/
3. E1 receives BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 121 with label 168002.

   1.  Let's assume E1 selects that path./

new text:/
3. E1 receives BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 121 with label 168002.

    Let's assume E1 selects that path./

-07 text:/
5. E1 resolves BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 121 on color-aware path
(121, C1).

   1.  Color-aware path (121, C1) is FA128 path to 121 (label
       168121). / 

New text:/
5. E1 resolves BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 121 on color-aware path
(121, C1).

    Color-aware path (121, C1) is FA128 path to 121 (label 168121)./ 

G3-27b: Section 5.2.2.2 items 3,5,6,7

-07 text:/
3. 121 resolves received BGP CAR route (451, C1) via 231 (label
168451) on the color-aware path (231, C1).

    1.  Color-aware path (231, C1) is FA128 path to 231 (label
        168231)./

New text:/
3. 121 resolves received BGP CAR route (451, C1) via 231 (label
168451) on the color-aware path (231, C1).

     Color-aware path (231, C1) is FA128 path to 231 (label168231)./

-07 text:/
6. 121 receives BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 with label 168002.

    1.  Let's assume 121 selects that path.

7. 121 resolves BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 on color-aware path
   (451, C1).

   1. Color-aware path (451, C1) is BGP CAR path to 451 (label
      168451). /
      New text:/

8. 121 receives BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 with label 168002.

   Let's assume 121 selects that path.

9. 121 resolves BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 on color-aware path
   (451, C1).

   Color-aware path (451, C1) is BGP CAR path to 451 (label 168451). /

G3-27d: Fix to indent format in 5.2.3

-07 text: /
6. E1 resolves BGP CAR route (451, C1) via 121 on color-aware path
(121, C1).

    1.  Color-aware path (121, C1) is FA128 path to 121 (label
        168121).

7. E1 receives BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 with label 168002.

   1. Let's assume E1 selects that path.

8. E1 resolves BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 on color-aware path
   (451, C1).

   1. Color-aware path (451, C1) is BGP CAR path to 451 (label
      168451)./
      New text: /

9. E1 resolves BGP CAR route (451, C1) via 121 on color-aware path
   (121, C1).

   Color-aware path (121, C1) is FA128 path to 121 (label 168121).

10. E1 receives BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 with label 168002.

    Let's assume E1 selects that path.

11. E1 resolves BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 on color-aware path
    (451, C1).

    Color-aware path (451, C1) is BGP CAR path to 451 (label 168451).
    /

[suehares]

G3-28: Section 5.3 (Two Edits) - Review of -07 Text

-08-Status: Resolved, closed
-07-Status: G3-28a and G3-28b are not resolved. Required change.

G3-28a: Section 5.3:

-07 text:/
5.3. Scale Analysis

The following two tables summarize the control-plane and dataplane
scale of these three models: /

New text:/5.3. Scale Analysis

The following two tables summarize the theoretical scaling of
the control-plane and data-plane for these three models:/

G3-28b Section 5.3 - Run on sentence

-07 text:/
- Whether next-hop self or unchanged at 121, 341's dataplane
scales with (451,C) where there may be thousands of 451's and 5
C's hence well under the 1M MPLS data plane./
New text:/
- Whether next-hop self or unchanged next-hop at 121, 341's data-plane
scales with (451, C) where there may be thousands of 451's and 5
C's. Therefore, this scaling is well under the 1 million MPLS data plane./

[suehares]

G3-29: Section 5.4 - Review of -07 and -08

-08-status: Resolved, closed
-07-status: Unresolved, required change

-07 text:/The (E, C) subscription scheme from Section 4.1 provides the
following scaling benefits for the models in Section 5.2./

new text:/ The (E, C) subscription scheme from Section 4.1 provides the
following scaling benefits for the theoretical models in Section 5.2./

[suehares]

G3-30: Section 5.5.2 - Review in -07 and -08 text

-08-status: Resolved, clsoed
-07-status: Not resolved. This issue has the following two parts: G3-30a and G3-30b.

Edit-1 (G3-30a)

-07 text:/

• For example, assume a node E2' paired with E2 above./
  New text:/
• For example, assume a node E2' paired with E2 above (see figure 5). /

Edit-1 (G3-30b)

Why-1: Needs clear references to the previous text in Section 5.5.1 referenced in the sentence.
Why-2: English Grammar. The word "however" rather than "but" links two sentences.
-07 text:/

• This design provides a convergence and recursive resolution
  benefit on an ingress PE or ABR similar to the egress ABR case in
  the previous section. But its applicability is limited to cases
  where the constraints above can be met./
  New text:/
• This design provides a convergence and recursive resolution
  benefit on an ingress PE or ABR similar to the egress ABR case in
  the previous section (Section 5.5.1). However, its applicability is
  limited to cases where the above constraints can be met./

[suehares]

-07-Text Resolution of G3-20 to G3-30

Not resolved: G3-21 (21a, 21b, and 21c), G3-22, G3-23, G3-25 (25a and 25b), G3-26. G3-27 (27a and 27b), G3-28, G3-29, G3-30
Resolved: G3-24

[suehares]

-08 TExt Resolution of G3-21 to G3-30
Resolved: G3-21, G3-22, G3-23, G3-25, G3-26, G3-27 (27a and 27b), G3-28, G3-29, G3-30
Unresolved: G3-27c NIT (see below)
Next steps:

• Discuss with DJ (4/24),
• Move 27c to NIT issues, and
• close G3-21 to G3-30

G3-27c: Fix to 5.2.2 on item 4

Why: It is unclear that T-RR1 is a transport RR.
-07 text:/
4. 451 advertises BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 to Transport RR
T-RR2, which reflects it to T-RR1, which reflects it to 121./
New text:/
4. 451 advertises BGP CAR route (E2, C1) via 451 to Transport RR
T-RR2, which reflects it to Transport RR T-RR1, which reflects it to 121./

[suehares]

09-Text Status:

All issues resolved, closing main issue