| > Right now I can sorta get a 3 level design by using eBGP, BGP
| > confederations, and IGP. But the top two (eBGP & confederations),
| > while close, are annoyingly different. And the bottom one (IGP)
| > is just wildly different. This is not good. I want the stuff to
| > be the same no matter where I am and to be able to add more layers
| > w/o fundamentally changing anything at other layers.
|
| I think that whether the IGP/BGP split is a "good" or a "bad" thing
| is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that this split is likely
| to be "inevitable" (as Tony mentioned a while ago).
I'll just point out that there are different requirements at different
levels of the hierarchy. Our goal is to build a scalable network that can
be managed in a distributed manner. To do this, there must be many,
diverse sets of administrators, each able to manage their own portions of
their networks as they see fit. Thus, we end up with an interconnected set
of individually administered entities. We cannot rationally and reasonably
expect administrators to pre-emptively disallow a helpful technology within
their own domains. And thus, we have the natural and inevitable split
between what we can control (now known as inter-domain) and what we cannot
control (now known as intra-domain).
Folks that don't grok this should please consult the prayer of
St. Francis. ;-)
Tony
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT