Re: [RRG] Try again

[HeinerHummel@aol.com]

In einer eMail vom 28.05.2008 16:29:14 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt drc@virtualized.org:

The reason I ask is that is seems to me that much of the discussion 
lately has appeared to me to be based upon widely varying base 
assumptions about what is and isn't necessary to "Do It Right".  I 
suspect it might be hard to reach consensus if this were to be the 
case...

Thanks,
-drc

I feel the same way. So let me make some general remark as well as some general question:

 

In terms of routing (navigating) different "systems" may co-exist: Seafarers watched the stars as well as the magnetic needle. I know that the majority is in favor of address aggregation while I am in favor of topology aggregation, which are indeed two completely different approaches.

 

IMO both systems may co-exist, at least  for multiple years, as my churn is neglectible. 

Like any new mechanism X, it would have to deal with the circumstance that not ALL deployed routers would

know X all of a sudden at the same point in time. Hence, tunneling is required, and yes: Propagation of capability X by means of BGP and OSPF advertisement.

 

So my question is this:

Would it be accepted that BGP advertised X, although the purpose of X is to do forwarding without BGP routing tables ?

 

Heiner