Thoughts on router object

Firstly, let me say this looks very nice and very clear.
A general question is could we drop the db_reference part per se and
perhaps mention its use in the same way as in the ripe-81++ text as an
possible experimental use.

> router:                 MANDATORY, UNIQUE
> 	The domain of the router.
> 	SYNTAX:  Full qulified domain name without trailing "."
> 	EXAMPLE: router: t3-0.enss132.t3.ans.net
> 	Merit extension
> 
Everything fine - only thing we might want to do is change the actual 
name to avoid typo clahses with route. How aboot border-rtr: or something
so that it is clear it is meant to describle border routers as well. 

> localas:                MANDATORY, UNIQUE if no db_reference
>         The AS the router belongs to. It can be overwritten in the interface
>         attribute to specify any other local AS
>         SYNTAX: ASdddd
>         EXAMPLE: AS183
> 	Merit extension
> 
> ifaddr:                 MANDATORY, MULTIPLE if no db_reference
>         The interface addresses for this router. A local AS for this
>         interface can by specified (<local AS>). By default this interface
>         use the AS number defined with the 'localas' attribute
>         SYNTAX: <dotted ip address> [<local AS>]
>         EXAMPLE: 35.1.1.42
> 	Merit extension
> 
> peer:                   OPTIONAL, MULTIPLE
>         The peers of this router. ?????????
>         SYNTAX: <peer address> <proto>
>         EXAMPLE: 35.1.1.42 BGPv4

The only other comment I had is we sould clearly define the <proto> part.
i.e. 
	EGP2 BGP2 BGP3 BGP4 IBGP OTHER 
or something like that.

Not sure if I understand the ????? part. This is supposed to describe
the routers' peers right ?. Should we also add the remote AS for good measure
or did I get something wrong.

Other than that, looks like we could get something out as a document
very quickly which would be great.

		--Tony



-------- Logged at  Fri Jul 15 20:45:33 MET DST 1994  ---------