bmanning@ISI.EDU previously wrote:
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.
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".
Indeed. In fact, it is the same idea as that of an RS to some point: the
routers on the high speed interconnect use a single BGP4 neighbor to
hear and announce routes at the XP. The only difference is that a single
organization would run a given RS, but with "proxies" everyone is in
full control of their AS. A single RS is nicer in some ways though: it
can make a lot of safety checks against the routing policy database it
needs to run, but only if the database reflects reality and changes to
it are monitored. It's a question of what architecture will be prefered
in the end by NAPs and their members; I'd like to give the RA RS a good
I was thinking of using the RS code to experiment with implementing some
of the weird features I've mentioned in other posts.