Re: multihoming without BGP

[randy () psg com (Randy Bush)]

In general, I agree with what you have been saying these last days, but try
to refrain from mee-too-isms.  But ...

> While BGP is a fine way to route packets, it's a horrid way to select
> paths for connections.

Either this statement is confused, I am, or both.  BGP is one way to get
data into forwarding tables so that forwarding engines can route packets.
As you go on to knock BGP for how it makes path decisions, the above
sentence becomes indigestible.

But anyway, the underlying problem is that BGP concentrates on policy, while
good IGPs concentrate on efficient use of paths.  An underlying assumption
may have been that ASx can/should not know the internals of ASy.

There have been proposals for BGP modifications and for other EGPs which
address the need for more path optimization in EGPs.  But this is NANOG, not
IDR.

> That's two folks who have come out today and said "well that's no damn
> good" without trying it.  I'm surprised, NANOG members usually have a more
> positive attitude.

Do you subscribe to a different NANOG list than I?

randy