Subject: RE: [bmwg] draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-04.txt

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:51:48 -0800

> An Enterprise BGP speaker might be very different from a Carrier router.

social/business characterization of bgp speakers is a research subject

> Is this the issue or where you just trying to make sure we clarified the
> default-free statement.

i think a clarification will do

> Is the Default-Free routing table phrase used by operators at this point?

yes

randy

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

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:51:48 -0800

yes

randy

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:22:38 -0500

Randy:

	Like many fine folks, the authors wanted to suggest that
looking at real BGP routing statistics is a good way to improve
your BGP implementation.  BGP statistics depend on the speaker.
An Enterprise BGP speaker might be very different from a Carrier router.

Characterizing the speakers along the lines of Route Views give 
route mixtures (number of prefixes by length, AS path statistics).
Is this statistical analysis of the route mixture, a better
way to describe the bgp routing traffic at any one point
in the Internet?  Is this the issue or where you just
trying to make sure we clarified the default-free statement.

Sue

============
4.1 Default Route, Default Free Table, and Full Table

   An individual router's routing table may not necessarily contain a
   default route.  Not having a default route, however, is not
   synonymous with having a full default-free table(DFT).

==> do you count a router which has full routing table and *discard* default
route as default free router or not?  If yes, non-applicable default route
(ie. no real nexthop) should be clarified
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:46:12 -0500

>social/business characterization of bgp speakers is a research subject

I disagree. The original motivation for the entire BGP convergence 
work was to help clear FUD about confusing vendor specifications -- 
and I'll note that the authors were originally router developers 
being driven crazy by their own salesdroids demanding context-free 
"better than" numbers.

I will grant there is not a rigorous distinction between the typical 
carrier edge router and a large multihomed enterprise router, but I 
consider it extremely useful to leave the concept there, as 
informational to the community. Too many enterprises are oversold 
into needing huge control plane capacity when they just need BGP to 
announce a few netblocks and get the default route, or perhaps to get 
partial routes.

As an author, I would be extremely reluctant to remove this informal 
distinction, which is meant to be useful rather than rigorous. I 
don't believe we have overspecified it.
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:46:12 -0500