In the spirit of making sure that everyone knows about plans for BGP4 deployment in other networks, so that they can make sure that their own plans do not cause things to break, I am forwarding our reply to the NSFNET/ANSnet Questionnaire to these lists (further discussion should be done on bgpd@merit.edu please). I encourage this sort of information to be made public. I also encourage all networks to make this sort of information public; more than just the networks that are directly connected to the NSFNET/ANSnet. --asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan) Forwarded message:
Subject: Re: NSFNET/ANSnet Questionnaire To: ie@merit.edu Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 02:07:07 -0500 (EST)
1. Name of Your Network: AlterNet
2. The AS number(s) of your Network: AS 701, AS 702
3. Routing information currently imported from NSFNET/ANSnet: All routes at AS 701. Just 140.222 at AS 702. AS 702 should be going away soon (needs two things to happen - we need new h/w and you need to be able to support two connections to another AS). We should have the new h/w in place this month.
4. If you import explicit routes from NSFNET/ANSnet, is it a requirement for your routing design (y/n)? Yes
5. When NSFNET/ANSnet becomes CIDR capable, do you expect to be able to peer via BGP4 and accept CIDR aggregates? (y/n) Yes, cisco, latest BGP beta. I plan to announce a test CIDR route as soon as you are ready to talk BGP4. I plan to announce productions CIDR routes as soon as we can be reasonably assured that this will not cause problems on the Internet.
6. If you can not generate or accept a default route that points to NSFNET/ANSnet, can you suggest an alternate routing plan? N/A
7. Do you expect NSFNET/ANSnet to do proxy aggregation for any explicit routes that you announce? No, under no circumstances.
8. Do you still expect to use EGP protocol to peer with NSFNET/ANSnet? (y/n) N/A. We have not done EGP with you in a *long* time.