IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Notes from 3/5/96 working group meeting

Paul Traina <pst@cisco.com> Wed, 06 March 1996 23:56 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18370; 6 Mar 96 18:56 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18366; 6 Mar 96 18:56 EST
Received: from p-o.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14283; 6 Mar 96 18:56 EST
Received: by p-o.ans.net id AA04670 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for bgp-outgoing); Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:24:26 GMT
Message-Id: <199603062324.PAA11641@puli.cisco.com>
To: bgp@ans.net
Subject: Re: Notes from 3/5/96 working group meeting
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Mar 1996 14:00:29 EST." <QQafxc18364.199603061900@esherk.uu.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 15:24:03 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Paul Traina <pst@cisco.com>
X-Orig-Sender: bgp-owner@ans.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: bgp@ans.net

  > 6) BGP Confederations
  > 
  > 	draft-trainia-bgp-confed-00.txt
  > 
  > 	It was moved that is be moved to experimental.

  > 	In deployment Cisco discovered some problems with
  > 	this approach.

This is an utterly incorrect summary.  All of the "problems" with this
approach were documented fully in the draft itself before-hand.  The only
protocol problem is the requirement of upgrading the entire-AS to confed-
capable routers before deploying confederations.  There is nothing wrong
with this approach.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email