Subject: (ngtrans) Re: ID on BGP extensions to Tag IPv6 routes that has IPv4 tunnels

From: Tissa Senevirathne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT)

Jerome et.al

Hopefully it is readable this time..

Consider the following digram
                                AS2
                         AS1.          AS3
    Site A               |                |           
Site B
                           |                |         
        
        Relay A ----- |                 |----------
Relay B

                              sites c,d,.... M        
                 
                          Relays... c,d...Nn
1.

If we the remote relay routers are across multiple AS
. 
In such a case BGP NEXT_HOP attribute would not
represent the IP address of the relay routers.

2. In general, and most commonly, remote relay sites
may not be known in advance and there can be multiple
of such sites. In this case explicit peering and thus
use of BGP NEXT_HOP attribute is not possibile.

3. When  relay routers IP address is hidden in the
NLRI, 
it is not convinent to apply BGP policies.

So abstracting relay router address as an attribute
allows us to address all that..

Why simple ?

Proposed method use BGP4+ and extended attributes.. 
There is no special tunnel specific parsers needed. 
It is all driven by BGP policy engine

Why scalable ?

It does not need any explcit peering or anything for 
tunneling purpose. Hence it scale as much the BGP 4+
scale

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com