Subject: Re: RP overloading: operational feedback

From: Henry Kilmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:53:52 -0400

What is the point of this message if we agree that we are all
representing ourselves as individuals and not our companies as was
previously discussed?

If you want to make the below statement non-biased, it would be fair
to say that both operators and vendors have supported at times the use
of BGP for inappropriate purposes.  It would also be true to say that
both operators and vendors have prevented the misuse of BGP in the
past as well.

Eric Rosen writes:
>
>Of  course, a  survey of  the PPVPN  archives will  show many  messages from
>operators supporting the extension of BGP.  In fact, there are messages from
>operators supporting the use of  BGP for totally inappropriate purposes that
>(IMHO) should be rejected by the IETF. 
>
>Fortunately this  is the IETF  not the ITU-T,  and we make our  decisions by
>dint of technical deliberations rather than by having a popularity contest. 

I'll go on record in saying that I am VERY concerned about the state
of BGP today and adding to it will make it worse not better.  Give me
the ability to seperate my functions and information distribution as
much as possible so I can track, monitor, restart or whatever else I
need to do seperately.  The extractions being made in the arguments on
these threads frustrating and serve no productive purpose.

Robert Raszuk writes:
>
>There is nothing which would prohibit anyone today from using a
>dedicated BGP session for each AF mesh. So all probles you are
>describing are very valid, but can be already addressed today by few
>extra config lines. 
>
>Further from TCP point of view adding another protocol or using multiple
>sessions for existing one is the same thing.

There is potentially a difference in the complexity of the programs
being run.  So while seperating into to BGP processes might seperate
fate, it might be better engineered to have the process optimized for
the purpose being used.

-Hank

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: Henry Kilmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:53:52 -0400

-Hank