|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: CIDR FAQ
[email protected] previously wrote: >> No. Colocated BGP4 "proxies" (I'm still not sure what to call these, >> anyone?) would peer via EBGP with other ASes BGP4 "proxies" on the same >> net. The next_hop BGP4 attribute on all routes exchanged would be that >> of the routers on the high speed interconnect, not of the "proxies." >> ASes that do not implement this would still peer via EBGP >> router-to-router as usual and would not see the "proxies;" eventually >> everyone would move towards having "proxies" or else router vendors >> would beef up their products, either way, we're all happy. >> Nick >This is very similar to the existing RA route server design. If you want >to play with this, then pick up the RS code and try it out. Its a lot >closer than the gated base is for doing this kind of "toying around". Indeed. In fact, it is the same idea as that of an RS to some point: the routers on the high speed interconnect use a single BGP4 neighbor to hear and announce routes at the XP. The only difference is that a single organization would run a given RS, but with "proxies" everyone is in full control of their AS. A single RS is nicer in some ways though: it can make a lot of safety checks against the routing policy database it needs to run, but only if the database reflects reality and changes to it are monitored. It's a question of what architecture will be prefered in the end by NAPs and their members; I'd like to give the RA RS a good chance. I was thinking of using the RS code to experiment with implementing some of the weird features I've mentioned in other posts. >--bill > Nick
|