28 Jan
2014
28 Jan
'14
10:46 a.m.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Bill Vodall wrote:
Actually that's what was being discussed for the BGP routing system.
Instead of running ampr-ripd, the tunnels run BGP with each other. This
would be similar to how the 6bone was kick-started quite a while ago
except we'd be overlaying net-44 on top of the existing IPv4 network.
You get the flexibility of a hybrid mesh (partial for many, full for some)
and you're running a well-supported EGP that many routers can handle.
--
Antonio Querubin
e-mail: tony(a)lavanauts.org
xmpp: antonioquerubin(a)gmail.com
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:01:45 -0800
From: Bill Vodall <wa7nwp(a)gmail.com>
I too would
like to see a routed approach - all this clumsy tunnelling
house of cards junk is never going to be reliable.
Seems to me it's the other way... With tunnel's, if one station goes
down all the other gateways persist. With the BPG routed system, the
gateway is another weak link in the routing chain. What happens if
the BPG gateway goes down - every station down stream is isolated.
I've heard there's provisions for alternate gateways - but is that
being used here?
The idea, that was mentioned here a few months ago, of tunnel gateways
dynamically rip (or ?) announcing their existence to fellow gateways
is intriguing..