[271] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CIDR FAQ
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Tue Aug 15 19:37:25 1995
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: nmw@news.ios.com (Nicolas Williams)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 16:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: dsiegel@net99.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199508152324.TAA21932@news> from "Nicolas Williams" at Aug 15, 95 07:23:57 pm
> >So what would the normal implementation of such a design be? ebgp-multihop
> >all of your peers into the PC, and then a single peering session the Cisco,
> >presuming no "next-hop-self" routes?
>
> No. Colocated BGP4 "proxies" (I'm still not sure what to call these,
> anyone?) would peer via EBGP with other ASes BGP4 "proxies" on the same
> net. The next_hop BGP4 attribute on all routes exchanged would be that
> of the routers on the high speed interconnect, not of the "proxies."
> ASes that do not implement this would still peer via EBGP
> router-to-router as usual and would not see the "proxies;" eventually
> everyone would move towards having "proxies" or else router vendors
> would beef up their products, either way, we're all happy.
>
>
> Nick
>
This is very similar to the existing RA route server design. If you want
to play with this, then pick up the RS code and try it out. Its a lot
closer than the gated base is for doing this kind of "toying around".
--bill
