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

[Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>]

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.