Herr Manning, At 11:15 AM 10/11/96 -0700, bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote:
You mean that routing protocols need to take account of policies? ;-)
Or do you mean that BGP isn't good enough?
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Yes... (silly :) Yes... (serious)
BGP has a number of serious flaws. The more complex the routing mesh, the more they will become visable. And if what I see is correct, IDRP, the BGP heir, has the same sets of problems.
Another suggestion? Lacking one, one might suggest that the complexity of the 'mesh' needs to be simplified. - paul
BGP has a number of serious flaws. The more complex the routing mesh, the more they will become visable. And if what I see is correct, IDRP, the BGP heir, has the same sets of problems.
Another suggestion? Lacking one, one might suggest that the complexity of the 'mesh' needs to be simplified.
- paul
This almost sounds like an EGP apologist... :) I know that several folks have identified the problems in these two protocols and are working on fixes which range from patches to new protocols. Simplifing the mesh is no longer a tenable position, IMHO. Its time onceee again, to upgrade the in-flight 747, but this time its not changing the wings, now we rebuild it to a 777 :) -- --bill
At 10:12 PM -0400 10/12/96, Paul Ferguson wrote: ...
At 11:15 AM 10/11/96 -0700, bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote: ...
BGP has a number of serious flaws. The more complex the routing mesh, the more they will become visable. And if what I see is correct, IDRP, the BGP heir, has the same sets of problems.
Another suggestion? Lacking one, one might suggest that the complexity of the 'mesh' needs to be simplified.
Lacking another suggestion, at least an enumeration of specific problems would be quite constructive. (That is, I think that vague assertions are not especially constructive.) Perhaps Bill would like to send his specific critiques to the IDR mailing list. Regards, --John -- John Scudder email: jgs@ieng.com Internet Engineering Group, LLC phone: (313) 669-8800 122 S. Main, Suite 280 fax: (313) 669-8661 Ann Arbor, MI 41804 www: http://www.ieng.com
BGP heir, has the same sets of problems.
Lacking another suggestion, at least an enumeration of specific problems would be quite constructive. (That is, I think that vague assertions are not especially constructive.)
Perhaps Bill would like to send his specific critiques to the IDR mailing list.
Regards,
John Scudder email: jgs@ieng.com
ftp://www.isi.edu/div7/ra/Publications/bgp_osc.ps.gz is a good start. And I think that the IDR folks have been made aware of the issues. I've seen them discussed briefly on that list. -- --bill
At 8:57 AM -0700 10/14/96, bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote:
ftp://www.isi.edu/div7/ra/Publications/bgp_osc.ps.gz
is a good start.
All -- I think Bill meant ftp://ftp.isi.edu/ra/Publications/bgp_osc.ps.gz The www.isi.edu URL doesn't work for me, anyhow. --John -- John Scudder email: jgs@ieng.com Internet Engineering Group, LLC phone: (313) 669-8800 122 S. Main, Suite 280 fax: (313) 669-8661 Ann Arbor, MI 41804 www: http://www.ieng.com
In message <2.2.32.19961013021241.006b47b0@lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson write s:
Herr Manning,
At 11:15 AM 10/11/96 -0700, bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote:
You mean that routing protocols need to take account of policies? ;-)
Or do you mean that BGP isn't good enough?
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Yes... (silly :) Yes... (serious)
BGP has a number of serious flaws. The more complex the routing mesh, the more they will become visable. And if what I see is correct, IDRP, the BGP heir, has the same sets of problems.
Another suggestion? Lacking one, one might suggest that the complexity of the 'mesh' needs to be simplified.
- paul
Paul, It's that sloppy multiprovider model. Let's go back to one NSFNET core. :-) Curtis ps- For the *extremely* humor impaired -- I'm just joking. I'm not seriously suggesting that. I am suggesting to Paul through (friendly) sarcasm that we have to live with routing complexity.
participants (4)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Curtis Villamizar -
John G. Scudder -
Paul Ferguson