Re: FYI: Last Call: 'A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)' to Draft Standard

In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405032120430.18822-100000 <at> netcore.fi>, Pekka Savola 
writes:
> On Mon, 3 May 2004, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> [...]
> > BGP/IGP interaction does not belong in the base BGP specification.
> > We've had consensus on that for many years and when it came up again
> > during this iteration within the WG it seemed to me we still had
> > consensus on that.
> 
> Note that I'm not calling for BGP/IGP interactions as described e.g., 
> in RFC1745.  That seems to mostly describe how to redistribute the 
> information between different protocols.
> 
> However, I'm interested in ensuring that BGP remains usable in the
> operations.  As it is, the current "active route condition" fails when
> you want to advertise the loopbacks and point-to-point (also) in BGP,
> not just the IGP.  That's a major scenario which has to be addressed,
> IMHO.
> 
> (And this has been already been addressed in all the implementations
> I've used, so this is really not just theory -- it's implemented and
> out there.)
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

You should look in the work group mailing list archives.  This too was
discussed at great length and quite recently and we acheived consensus
that it was a topic for a separate internet-draft.  No one volunteered
to write that separate draft (so far) but that does not affect the BGP
spec.

Curtis

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr