Re: revised draft of BGP-4

[Paul Traina <[e-mail]>]

> Following case: assume a multihomed AS splits up due to internal 
> connectivity loss. Both parts announce routes to systems with transit 
> agreement. 
> By accepting routes with the own AS path, the other part of the AS can be 
> reached via the transit system.
> this shouls be the default.

That is not precluded in this document, however the mechanisms for
implementing that are outside of the scope of this document.

> The limitation in this paragraph is only important for single homed AS 
> systems, which are not the majority case.
> 
> I would suggest to invert this, that the default behaviour will be to 
> accept routes with the same AS path, but not to duplicate the same route 
> at all.

May I respectfully suggest that you review the protocol specification,
specificly the area that describes the part of text you're suggesting
we throw out.

If you have a proposal for maintaining loop freedom without the reverse path
vector, propose an alternate method for doing this, write up a description of
your algorithm and submit a revised draft of the protocol specification and
the protocol analysis to the working group chairs and we can all sit down and
review it next month at the IETF.

If it works, I see absolutely no problem with adding such a change to
the next descendant of BGP and/or IDRP,  however given that BGP and IDRP
are RPF based protocols,  I think some of the folks who have been working
on this for the past 4 years might have an objection to changing the
fundamental basis of the protocol between draft and full standard.

Best regards,

Paul