--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-05.txt	2014-01-02 13:14:33.633008636 -0800
+++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-06.txt	2014-01-02 13:14:33.681009746 -0800
@@ -1,24 +1,24 @@
 
 IDR Working Group                                              R. Raszuk
 Internet-Draft                                                    NTT I3
 Intended status: Standards Track                               C. Cassar
-Expires: December 06, 2013                                 Cisco Systems
+Expires: July 6, 2014                                      Cisco Systems
                                                                  E. Aman
                                                              TeliaSonera
                                                              B. Decraene
                                                             S. Litkowski
                                                                   Orange
-                                                           June 04, 2013
+                                                         January 2, 2014
 
                  BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
-             draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-05
+             draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-06
 
 Abstract
 
    [RFC4456] asserts that, because the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
    cost to a given point in the network will vary across routers, "the
    route reflection approach may not yield the same route selection
    result as that of the full IBGP mesh approach."  One practical
    implication of this assertion is that the deployment of route
    reflection may thwart the ability to achieve hot potato routing.  Hot
    potato routing attempts to direct traffic to the closest AS egress
@@ -53,25 +53,25 @@
    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
    Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
 
    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
 
-   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 06, 2013.
+   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 6, 2014.
 
 Copyright Notice
 
-   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
    document authors.  All rights reserved.
 
    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
    (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
    publication of this document.  Please review these documents
    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
    to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
@@ -81,32 +81,32 @@
 
    1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
    2.  Proposed solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
    3.  Best path selection for BGP hot potato routing  from
        customized IGP network position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
      3.1.  Client's perspective best path selection algorithm  . . .   7
        3.1.1.  Flat IGP network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
        3.1.2.  Hierarchical IGP network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
      3.2.  Aside: Configuration-based flexible route reflector
            placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
-     3.3.  Route reflector client grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
+     3.3.  Route reflector client grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
        3.3.1.  Route Reflector Client Group ID . . . . . . . . . . .  10
      3.4.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
      3.5.  Advantages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
-   4.  Angular distance approximation for BGP warm potato  routing .  12
+   4.  Angular distance approximation for BGP warm potato  routing .  13
      4.1.  Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
      4.2.  Proposed solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
      4.3.  Centralized vs distributed route reflectors . . . . . . .  15
    5.  Client's perspective policy based best path selection . . . .  16
      5.1.  Proposal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
      5.2.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
-     5.3.  Avoiding routing loops  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
+     5.3.  Avoiding routing loops  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
    6.  Deployment considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
    7.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
    8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
    9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
    10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
      10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
      10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
    Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
 
 1.  Introduction
@@ -933,21 +936,21 @@
               Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
 
    [RFC5492]  Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
               with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009.
 
 10.2.  Informative References
 
    [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths]
               Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
               "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-
-              add-paths-08 (work in progress), December 2012.
+              add-paths-09 (work in progress), October 2013.
 
    [RFC1997]  Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
               Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.
 
    [RFC1998]  Chen, E. and T. Bates, "An Application of the BGP
               Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing", RFC 1998,
               August 1996.
 
    [RFC4384]  Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114,
               RFC 4384, February 2006.