BGP4 Questionare

Tue Dec 7 21:13:23 UTC 1993

 Elise,

 Thanks for collecting this information.  We have discussed this offline
with another provider, and agree that it is important to not only collect
this information, but crucial to disclose it to help analyze Cidr deployment
issues.  

 I have added a disclaimer to the top of my questionaire.

 I think the results of the questionaire should be made available to
bgpd, and if possible add it to the policy whois server on prdb.merit.edu.

 Thanks!
  Sean

 The information collected is important for future routing design in the
Internet, and considered part of the NSFnet policy routing database.  The 
information maybe disclosed much in the manner that Merit currently
provides policy information for networks, and ASes-- reports, whois, 
and to mailing lists.

1. Name of Your Network: NEARnet

2. The AS number(s) of your Network: 560

3. Routing information currently imported from NSFNET/ANSnet:

 B, default plus specific routes.

4. If you import explicit routes from NSFNET/ANSnet, is it a requirement
   for your routing design (y/n)?

 Yes.

5. When NSFNET/ANSnet becomes CIDR capable, do you expect to be able to
   peer via BGP4 and accept CIDR aggregates? (y/n)

 Yes.

 We will be peering with 3 Cisco AGS routers.

 9.21+BGP4

 1st qtr, 1993 (when gated support for aggregate is deployed, and implemented.
 Starting with non-production aggregates.)

6. If you can not generate or accept a default route that points
   to NSFNET/ANSnet, can you suggest an alternate routing plan?

N/A

7. Do you expect NSFNET/ANSnet to do proxy aggregation for any explicit
   routes that you announce?

No.

8. Do you still expect to use EGP protocol to peer with NSFNET/ANSnet? (y/n)

No.