RE: diffs to draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-03.txt

["NITTMANN Michael (MSMail)" <[e-mail]>]

I did a nice BB with ospf , and bgp only at the corners. 30k routes with
4500s and 7000s (is some time since then).

This was the fastest converging engine I ever was allowed to build.

Why others don't do it? Yes, you need both halves running.

Please keep it in. I would even recommend that instead of IBGP over a
whole ISP.

Mike

>----------
>From: 	Yakov Rekhter[SMTP:[e-mail]]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, September 17, 1996 8:33 AM
>To: 	[e-mail]
>Cc: 	[e-mail]
>Subject: 	Re: diffs to draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-03.txt 
>
>Curtis,
>
>>      If a particular AS has multiple BGP speakers and is providing transit
>>      service for other ASs, then care must be taken to ensure a consistent
>>      view of routing within the AS.  A consistent view of the interior
>>      routes of the AS is provided by the interior routing protocol.  A
>>      consistent view of the routes exterior to the AS can be provided by
>> !    having all BGP speakers within the AS maintain direct IBGP connections
>> !    with each other.  Alternately the interior routing protocol can
>> !    pass BGP information among routers within an AS, taking care not to
>> !    lose BGP attributes that will be needed by EBGP speakers if transit
>> !    connectivity is being providided.  For the purpose of discussion,
>> !    it is assumed that BGP information is passed within an AS using
>> !    IBGP.  Care must be taken to ensure that the interior routers have
>> !    all been updated with transit information before the EBGP speakers
>> !    announce to other ASs that transit service is being provided.
>
>Despite the fact that the notion of using IGP to carry BGP information
>within an AS isn't new, and had been discussed within the IDR WG on
>more than one occassion, we've yet to see any progress in this area.
>So, why should the BGP spec describe something that doesn't exist ?
>
>Yakov.
>