Nicolas Williams nmw at
Tue Aug 15 23:54:23 UTC 1995

bmanning at 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.

>> 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".

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.



More information about the NANOG mailing list