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

["John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>]

At 6:33 AM -0700 9/17/96, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>> !    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 ?

I think that the spec shouldn't preclude using the IGP.  Beyond that, I
don't care.  I think Curtis's text allows for the possibility without going
overboard.  By the way, the possibility of using the IGP is also alluded to
in section 3 of the current draft.

(By the way, there are various places where text like "care must be taken
to ensure that the interior routers have all been updated with transit
information before the EBGP speakers announce..." appears in the current
I-D (and the RFC).  Speaking of things that don't exist, can anyone point
to any implementations which *guarantee* that the IGP has converged
throughout the entire AS before propagating the route in EBGP?  If not, why
is this text present?)

--John

--
John Scudder                        email:  [e-mail]
Internet Engineering Group, LLC     phone:  [phone]
122 S. Main, Suite 280              fax:    [phone]
Ann Arbor, MI  41804                www:    http://www.ieng.com