Since we are talking about new networking terms you coined one the other day
Priscilla. It was in the splitting the group string. You described people
coming on this list, asking horribly worded questions, that were probably
quickly "brain-dumped" to a palm pilot then regurgitated here. This is after
a booming failure. So that is a new networking/list term.
Palm-Pilot English.
And the coin is yours.
Don
P.S. That busted me up!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: A new networking term - thoughts? [7:16668]
> At 11:59 PM 8/21/01, Tony Medeiros wrote:
> >I always thought "split horizon" was a non intuitive term anyway. iBGP
or
> >whatever. Some engineers come up with the strangest names for things.
> >
> >Split horizon implys there is a big tree that is obstructing my view of
the
> >sunset. :>0
>
> Is it a spanning tree? ;-)
>
> I like the term split horizon and agree with the idea of using it
> generically. I encourage the generic use of most terms so that people
think
> about what they really mean. See a discussion we had earlier about
distance
> vector, for example.
>
> For spanning tree, I like the way Radia Perlman puts it:
>
> "The purpose of the spanning tree algorithm is to have bridges dynamically
> discover a subset of the topology that is loop-free (a tree) and yet has
> enough connectivity so that where physically possible, there is a path
> between every pair of LANs (the tree is spanning)."
>
> I'm not sure I had ever thought about why the word "spanning" is in the
> phrase. And I would add to her description:
>
> A tree is a mathematical concept. A tree is a diagram or graph that
> branches from a single stem without forming loops or polygons.
>
> A lot of people learn these terms without understanding them.
>
> And, back to the subject, I think split horizon can be used in this
> situation, even though it's a bit different and the horizons aren't quite
> the same.
>
> Priscilla
>
> (wishing she was looking over the Hawaiian horizon about now. ;-)
>
>
>
> >Tony M.
> >(Split personnality)
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Chuck Larrieu"
> >To:
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 8:13 PM
> >Subject: RE: A new networking term - thoughts? [7:16668]
> >
> >
> > > I thought I was fairly careful in stating that with iBGP
split-horizon,
> an
> > > iBGP router will not advertise a route to the same AS from which it
> >receives
> > > the route. This covers the interface issue.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > > whose mama didn't raise no fool, and whose lawyer wife has taught him
the
> > > hard way about wording things ;->
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > > Ole Drews Jensen
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 8:52 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: A new networking term - thoughts? [7:16668]
> > >
> > >
> > > Chuck, I think there's a difference here. Split Horizon as you say,
does
> >not
> > > advertise a route back out the interface that it received it on, but
the
> > > iBGP does not only not propagate a route learned from other iBGP out
the
> > > receiving interface, but it does not propagate it out any interfaces
> >unless
> > > it has been setup as a cluster server.
> > >
> > > If you would name this, it would probably be something like "iBGP
> horizon"
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > Just my 00000010 cents.
> > >
> > > Ole
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > Ole Drews Jensen
> > > Systems Network Manager
> > > CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I
> > > RWR Enterprises, Inc.
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > http://www.RouterChief.com
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > NEED A JOB ???
> > > http://www.oledrews.com/job
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 10:29 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: A new networking term - thoughts? [7:16668]
> > >
> > >
> > > As a result of an off-list conversation, I came across the following
> > > networking term:
> > >
> > > iBGP split horizon
> > >
> > > my first reaction was a sarcastic remark about never having come
across
> >the
> > > term in the RFC's. but then I got to thinking about it, and I now see
> this
> > > as a descriptive and quite useful term.
> > >
> > > recall that distance vector protocols are subject to the rule of split
> > > horizon. they do not advertise a route back out the interface that
they
> > > received that particular route.
> > >
> > > one of the gotchas of iBGP is the fact that iBGP routers do not
propagate
> > > routes learned from one iBGP neighbor to other iBGP neighbors. hence
the
> > > requirement for iBGP full mesh.
> > >
> > > so why not call this iBGP split horizon? and define it as follows: an
> iBGP
> > > router will not advertise a route back out the same AS from which it
> >learned
> > > the route?
> > >
> > > does this make sense? worth letting this one join the lexicon of
> >networking
> > > terminology?
> > >
> > > Chuck
> ________________________
>
> Priscilla Oppenheimer
> http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16871&t=16668
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
