Subject: RE: [RPSEC] Agenda Items for Atlanta

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:11:46 -0400 (EDT)

None that I know of, although there has been talk for a long time
about a bgp replacement. 

Russ

On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Michel Py wrote:

> Russ,
> 
> >> Michel Py wrote:
> >> Finally, here is my question: Is there a list of currently
> >> being developed routing protocols that this WG will look at
> >> as part of the process of writing the requirements document?
> 
> > Russ White wrote:
> > All the routing protocols.... ISIS, BGP (and variants),
> > OSPF, RIP, PIM, etc. There's no list because we presume
> > such a list will change before we finish it. 
> 
> I thought the ones above would be called "existing" ones, not "being
> developed" as they are in production.
> 
> Allow me to rephrase the question: How many protocols not yet in
> production are on the radar screen?
> 
> Michel.
> 

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

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

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:10:55 -0700

Russ,

Michel.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:06:58 +0200 (CEST)

> None that I know of, although there has been talk for a long time

Any pointers?

I must say I haven't heard about this before.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:36:12 -0400

If the draft-iab-bgparch-02.txt draft (or its replacement) is still
available, its worth reading this for future requirements of the
next IDR protocol.  However, anything besides security considerations
of said protocol is probably out of scope for this WG.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:46:55 +0200 (CEST)

> of said protocol is probably out of scope for this WG.

Thanks for the non-link. (Who do you have to route to the null interface
to get the IETF to change this "remove all evidence a draft has ever
existed after six months" policy, anyway?)

This is somewhat interesting, but I've seen most of it before. Especially
the growth of the routing table stuff has been widely distributed (in
Cisco's IPJ and later it became an RFC).

Even though it is out of scope for this wg, I can't let the traffic
engineering part pass without comment. This is presented as a big problem
that necessitates large scale de-aggregating. However, many large transit
have a list of communities that customers can set for their routes to aid
traffic engineering. This works extremely well and has little to no impact
on the global routing table at large.

Also, the whole interdomain link state discussion never mentions IDPR, and
why it died a very silent death as BGP started on the path towards
supremacy.

My opinion is that BGP4 is so flexible it can be retrofitted with just
about anything that is required, so there is little need for a BGP5 other
than to streamline the whole thing, unless we need something very
radically different.

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:05:50 -0400 (EDT)

Look at the irtg nextgen routing protocol stuff--there are
requirements docs defined, but not much more.

:-)

Russ