dead horse time, and maybe not worth further comment / question, but see below if you have masochistic tendencies, or just want to delve into the thought process of the designers:
some snipping done because the thread was getting to be less clear. ""Peter van Oene"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > inline > > > Was it ever discussed in any BGP spec? It's certainly not in 1771, nor > 1267 as far as I know. > > > Was just making the point that beyond OSPF-BGP interaction, I've never seen > BGP-IGP synchronization described in any ietf documentation related to best > practise BGP implementations. I was curious about that. Besides, I wanted to see if my guess was reasonable. So I went back to RFC 1163. I also took a quick look at RFC 1773. Finally I delved into RFC 1164. You are correct that historically there does not appear to be discussion of "no synch" as we know and love it. OTOH, 1163 does state the following: "To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforced using BGP, one must focus on the rule that an AS advertise to its neighbor ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rule reflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used throughout the current Internet." There is an implication here that there needs be some means of enforcing rules of reachability. Synchronization would appear to be the best / the only means of doing so. RFC 1164 actually discusses this in detail. So then why the "no synch" that all us wannabees have come to depend upon? Is it solely to make it easier for us to set up BGP in our labs? Is it for the practical reason that I as an ISP might have a bunch of /24's I want to advertise, but I worry about some of them flapping due to an unreliable carrier? As I said, dead horse time. Chuck Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=41149&t=40741 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
