Re: how well will IDRP nee BGP work?

bmanning@isi.edu Mon, 21 August 1995 18:11 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13650; 21 Aug 95 14:11 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13646; 21 Aug 95 14:11 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16083; 21 Aug 95 14:11 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA48537 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net); Mon, 21 Aug 1995 14:01:51 -0400
Message-Id: <199508211801.AA48537@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-3); Mon, 21 Aug 1995 14:01:51 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2); Mon, 21 Aug 1995 14:01:51 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: bmanning@isi.edu
Posted-Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 10:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Mon, 21 Aug 1995 14:01:51 -0400
Subject: Re: how well will IDRP nee BGP work?
To: Dimitry Haskin <dhaskin@baynetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 10:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: bmanning@isi.edu, bgp@ans.net
In-Reply-To: <9508211756.AA13719@BayNetworks.com> from "Dimitry Haskin" at Aug 21, 95 01:56:27 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1110

> > >From the IPv6 mailing list.  Concerned with the general prospect of
> > renumbering in IPv6 and perhaps IPv4, I raised this question... and
> > was refered here.  When/If renumbering is the defacto mode of operation,
> > and if my assumptions are correct, then BGP/IDRP are fundamentally flawed.
> > 
> > Please tell me that this is not so and BGP/IDRP will be happy with
> > dynamic renumbering. (Can figure out who its peers are w/o manual
> > intervention)
> 
> I believe that major pain of renumbering is with hosts nor routers. Hence,
> I guess, some manual re-configuration of routers is acceptable and
> probably unavoidable.  Do you think otherwise?
> 
> Dimitry
> 

I am not so sure.  Hosts effectivly need to be treated once. The routers
will be different. The routers carry complex configurations and access-lists.
Hand crafting them is hard enough w/o the requirement to readjust them 
every time you, your provider, or any of your peers renumbers, particularly
when this is done with any regularity.  In this case a more simple
construct of static routes may be easier to manage.

-- 
--bill