bmanning@ISI.EDU 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