Re: RFC1863 to historic? [Re: [Idr] Last Call on draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-00.txt (fwd)]

[Paul Jakma <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Should draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-00.txt or some other document also
> make RFC1863 ("A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh
> routing") historic?

Is RFC1863 not historic anyway by virtue of utter lack of support?
TTBOMK there are no widely deployed BGP implementations with support
for client side of 1863, nor is there ever likely to be AFAICT.

> IDRP is at least extict, but are BGP route servers useful for the
> replacement of a full mesh (anymore/at all)?

Chicken and egg possibly. There is no good deployable route-server
solution other than the path-selecting type, which requires knowledge
of client policy and hence is operationally expensive for, eg, IXes
with many clients with diverse policy. 

That doesnt mean there would not be interest in future in some kind 
of better BGP route-server or even just 'connection concentrator' 
solution.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	[e-mail]	[e-mail]	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
	warning: do not ever send email to [e-mail]
Fortune:
It'll be a nice world if they ever get it finished.

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr