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

Robert,

1. I don't presume to even *think* about speaking for Merit.
2. That said, I was one of the last of the operators of the RSng project. :-)

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 02:48:34PM -0700, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> I think Route Servers are widely used in Internet Exchange points.

Towards the end of the RSng project, the route servers were redeployed
as a mechanism by which to concentrate the collection of routing 
statistics for various projects.  The RIS project that RIPE is currently
doing serves many of the same purposes and there are others.

I will honestly say that by the time that I had left RSng that there
were maybe one or two total peers that were using RSD via RSng for
purposes of receiving routing data for forwarding purposes.

All of this said, there are other small exchanges that are said to
be deploying route servers, but it sounds like these are small regionals.
This observation is strictly based on a few random peering BOFs at
past NANOGs, the most recent one that I remember being the last one
in Phoenix.

> The 
> fact that they did not get a wide vendor support is bug not a feature. 

Please note that RFC 1863 doesn't so much define a route server as
it does a route-reflector style mechanism for route servers.  This is
the bit that didn't get wide deployment.

> There are very new evolving applications (example CSC in 2547) which can 
> not scale without vpnv4 multi context route servers. So if anything 
> there is a new work required to extend/update 1863 rather then move it 
> to historic status.

IMO, 1863 is a bit more complicated than what we would want these
days given modern route reflection techniques.  If a need exists to
allow multiple views to be passed around in BGP there are better ways
to go about it.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr