Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> But all of this is only delaying the inevitable (not that that can't
> be useful sometimes): at some point, we need to move away from the
> premise that all default-free routers must know about all reachable
> prefixes.
But isn't this the *definition* of a default-free router?
Maybe you mean we need to move away from the premise that you have to
run default-free ("full BGP table!") to be taken seriously.
(Maybe I'm just bitter because our network runs with "only" 26783 IPv4
BGP routes (and two defaults), so I cannot play with the big guys. :-)
> With this ball and chain removed we can start looking at new
> interdomain routing paradigms, such as an idr link state protocol
> that can function in a never fully converged state. (Which would
> make for some nice PhD work...)
There's lots of exciting new work about loop prevention in link-state
internal routing protocols right here in the IETF - check out
http://rtg.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/ . Maybe some of this could be leveraged
for a new external routing protocol.
(Not that I think that it will be likely that we move from BGP to an
entirely new protocol without replacing all current IDR players... but
that doesn't mean you shouldn't try :-).
--
Simon.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf