On Tue, 1 May 2001, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > BGP is bound between two IP addresses. When the IP addresses change
> > the BGP peering is lost.
>
> This is a valid point, which has already been discussed many times on
> the list, but is not discussed or even alluded to in RFC 2283. The
> solution in IGPs is to use link-local addresses for exchanging IGP
> packets; this means that the "peering" in RIP, OSPF or IS-IS will
> survive renumbering. This solution is not entirely applicable to BGP.
> However, we can probably use a combination of the following:
>
> 1) Use of link local addresses when BGP peers are directly connected.
> 2) Use of site-local addresses when BGP peers belong to the same site.
> 3) Use of mobile-IP solutions so that TCP survives renumbering.
> 4) Use of IPv4 addresses in multi-protocol environments.
[snip]
When considering these options, please note that site-local addresses may
also need to be renumbered (probably often at the same time when
subnetting of global addresses changes).
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
