Lou,
> At 05:30 PM 9/2/2008, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>
> >Here is the text I'll add to the spec to discuss this issue:
> >
> > Use of Traffic Engineering Attribute does not increase the number
> > of routes.
> >
> > When the routes differ in other than the Traffic Engineering
> > Attribute (e.g., differ in the set of Route Targets, and/or
> > NEXT_HOP), use of Traffic Engineering Attribute has no impact
> > on the number of BGP Update messages required to carry the routes.
> > Only when the routes have all, but the Traffic Engineering
> > Attribute the same, use of the attribute may increase the number
> > of BGP Update messages required to carry the routes.
> >
> >Yakov.
>
> Is this from babel fish? How about:
>
> Use of Traffic Engineering Attribute does not increase the number
> of routes, but may increase the number of BGP Update messages
> required to distribute the routes.
>
> When the routes differ in other than the Traffic Engineering
> Attribute (e.g., differ in the set of Route Targets, and/or
> NEXT_HOP), use of Traffic Engineering Attribute has no impact
> on the number of BGP Update messages required to carry the routes.
> There is also no impact when routes share all other attribute
> information and have an aggregated or identical Traffic
Engineering Attribute
.
> When routes share all other attribute information and have different
> Traffic Engineering Attributes, routes must be distributed in
> per-route BGP Update messages rather than a single message.
Almost there... The only change is to the first paragraph,
as follows:
Use of Traffic Engineering Attribute does not increase the number
of routes, but may increase the number of BGP Update messages
required to distribute the routes depending on whether these routes
share the same BGP Traffic Engineering attribute or not (see below).
The second paragraph is fine.
Yakov.