routing meltdown

Fri Aug 11 19:06:17 UTC 1995

Yakov Rekhter previously wrote:

>Jon,

>> I absolutely agree that the time has come to remove complex routing 
>> protocols from routers and use workstations.

>Two points:

>1. I am not sure whether BGP could be classified as a "complex routing 
>   protocol".

The information it is used to carry at the XPs is complex; so are the
routing policies some folk want to use.

>2. The proposed scheme does not remove BGP from the routers. In fact, BGP is
>   used to communicate forwarding information between the routers and the route
>   servers.  

Of course, but the server condenses all of the paths it learns at the XP
to just one path per prefix learned at the XP, thus significantly
reducing the load on the router: now the router has several times fewer
paths to choose from and store in memory.

>So, if we're to assume that BGP is "a complex routing protocol", then using
>router servers does not allow "to remove complex routing protocols from
>routers". And if we're to assume that BGP is not a complex routing protocol,
>then we don't have a problem of removing "complex routing protocols from
>routers".

>So, it seems that using route servers would have no impact wrt to removing
>"complex routing protocols from routers".

But with reducing the load on them.

>Yakov.

Frankly, I think every NAP should require this sort of setup, at least
until routers get good enough in these respects, and even requiere that
BGP4 NAP traffic be pushed off onto a lower bandwidth LAN.

Nick

PS: If I remember correctly, every peer at some NAPs gets two IP host
    addresses for them to use at the NAP; this means that using a BGP4
    "proxy" (if I call it a route server some might think I'm referring
    to the RA route server) is a possibility for all, and noone is
    stopping anyone from using one at those NAPs.