Re: A connection-based Internet?

Tim Bass <bass@linux.silkroad.com> Thu, 19 December 1996 22:59 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa16229; 19 Dec 96 17:59 EST
Received: from murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23554; 19 Dec 96 17:59 EST
Received: from mailing-list by murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.6.9/1.0) id JAA04559; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:53:21 +1100
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU by murtoa.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.6.9/1.0) with SMTP id JAA04505; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:34:28 +1100
Received: from linux.silkroad.com by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.56) id WA28723; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:34:24 +1100 (from bass@linux.silkroad.com)
Received: (from bass@localhost) by linux.silkroad.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) id RAA12892; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:29:07 -0500
From: Tim Bass <bass@linux.silkroad.com>
Message-Id: <199612192229.RAA12892@linux.silkroad.com>
Subject: Re: A connection-based Internet?
To: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:29:07 -0500 (EST)
Cc: minshall@ipsilon.com, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, huitema@bellcore.com, mo@uu.net, big-internet@munnari.oz.au, flows@research.ftp.com, jkr@netstar.com, tagswitch@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <199612192145.NAA23209@chimp.jnx.com> from "Tony Li" at Dec 19, 96 01:45:31 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

> 
> 
>    BGP was built on EGPs 'working code'.
> 
> Amazing.

Sorry to cross swords with you in public, Monsieur BGP!

For what other excuse can there be for such an 'policy based, 
manually configurable' core-tree paradigm that is not scalable
(like EGP), exchanges no routing policies (like EGP) and looks
like EGP with more features and 'advances' ?

BGP was certainly not a radical departure from EGP like so
many competing technologies and paradigms that for certain
would require a complete rewrite.  It certainly was not
a new vision for a meshed AD topology providing zero
dependence on the core-tree superstructure.

However, if you claim that not one line of YOUR code was used
for BGP from EGP, Monsieur, that may well be.  However, based
on the very close similarity between the two protocols in
principle and paradigm, it stands to reason that SOMEONE
other than yourself thought of EGP when considering BGP.

One thing is certain, honorable Monsignor, we shall never agree in
principle on the BGP development track. Some shall consider
it 'a wonder of engineering', changing 'wings on airplanes
in mid-flight',  and other romantic tales from the net.
Yet others, perfectly well educated and knowledgable engineers
will disagree, and with acceptable reason.

I beg you, Monsieur, to allow me to take leave of this dialog;
because I am a critic of BGP, and after searching the entire
IEEE publication database, printing, studying, reading  all
of the papers on the subject, and reading every paper printed
on hierarchical routing. Yet! I still  remain a critic of BGP, 
in spite of the romantic rhetoric.   

This criticism, however, is certainly not a personal one!

My issues are with those who placed 'policy based routing'
to enforce directed AUPs above clustering and scalability.
This, as I currently see it, was the driving force that
has lead ERP development down it's thorny path.


Best Regards,

Tim