> From: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> >> We still have the same old kludgy BGP global routing system we always >> had, and _nothing_ has been proposed to improve/replace it.
> Blatantly not true. There's this thing called NIMROD that has been > proposed to replace it. Perhaps you've heard of it? ;-) In my original message, I meant 'here in the RRG, recently'. And you could probably expand that to 'here in the I*, recently'. I don't think there's been any serious work in routing since Unified and Nimrod, right? > From: Shane Amante <sh...@castlepoint.net> > let me try to take a step back and share with everyone a much broader > set of, potentially, architectural concerns > ... > if a downstream network does not have visibility into its upstream > network's routing policy is it practical/feasible for the downstream > network to understand the _intended_ propagation of reachability > information and, ultimately, connectivity? Furthermore, is it feasible > to carry such information within the control plane itself? Or, should > the control plane be relegated to carrying [strictly] reachability > information You ask a series of very interesting questions, ones I don't have an immediate answer to. On the first, I have heard people say that providers don't want to tell anyone anything about the policies, etc. As to the second, there has been some thinking along those lines, although I'm not sure it's all written down. E.g. in the context of Nimrod, I thought about the possibility of separating topology informtion from up/down information. E.g. a node might flood topology information (i.e. long-term, permanent changes), but it would not flood up/down information (i.e. short-term state changes). A distant node would find out that an asset that was listed in the map was actually 'down' when it tried to set up a path through it; the path setup would fail. I.e. that information would be propogated in 'pull' mode, to try and reduce overhead, and have that information only sent to those entities which actually needed it. (There's a lot of complictions, e.g. what happens when an asset fails when there's traffic using it, but I'm going to gloss over them all for the moment.) But I'm not sure that stuff got written down... :-( > {A long series of other very interesing comments, which I don't have > the time to reply to.} This is all very interesting stuff. Is there any chance you could expand this into a short note (an RFC might be too much work, but perhaps there's some other way to distribute it). This sort of information, from the operational commmunity, is very valuable to system architects. I personally am going to re-read this message several times to make sure I have really absorbed everything in it. > Does anyone on this list share similar concerns wrt operational > robustness, time to recovery and (then) scalability of BGPv4? Absolutely. And I also have 'tussle' issues; which is to say, right now, the users have little insight, and basically zero control (other than having multiple providers, and picking the outbound provider) over paths. I'd like to see the users have more insight and control, but the providers probably wouldn't like that (hence the 'tussle' reference). Noel _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg