soBGP deployment

Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Mon May 23 16:16:40 UTC 2005


> but this just underscores the difference here

> its the old simplicity vs complexity game yet again

Why should the IETF be making the tradeoff decision
here rather than the operators? 

It seems to me that a more workable solution in today's
Internet, is to decouple the definition of the information
exchanged by network operators from the protocol used
to exchange the information. It should be possible
to design a system in such a way that a network operator
can choose whether or not to do this job directly on
their BGP-speaking routers or whether to offload it
onto some type of route-registry database system.
In fact, it should be possible for a single AS to
vary which model it follows because in larger networks
there is less homogeneity, i.e. some BGP routers are
far more mission critical and carry higher traffic
levels than others.

Rather than looking for something that is 100% 
overloaded on the BGP-speaking routers, why not
give network operators the tools to make their own
80-20 decisions about where this network management
function should be handled?

--Michael Dillon




More information about the NANOG mailing list