Re: CIDR FAQ

[Nicolas Williams <nmw () news ios com>]

bmanning () 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
chance.

I was thinking of using the RS code to experiment with implementing some
of the weird features I've mentioned in other posts.

> --bill

Nick