22 Jul
2019
22 Jul
'19
7:07 a.m.
I don't think BGP has a problem working over IPIP
tunnels. In the end it is just a TCP connection to one or mre endpoints.
In principle yes, but unfortunately the current IPIP tunnel implementation
handles both the tunnel establishment and the routing. The routing is
static. You cannot setup BGP sessions because you do not know the other
side's address and AS.
Possibly one could work around that by adding the 44net endpoint address
and the BGP AS number of each tunnel gateway, so the endpoints could
connect eachother for the BGP routing.
However that would be another major change and I'm not sure everyone
would want to BGP peer with everyone else. That could also introduce
new scaling problems.
Rob
22 Jul
22 Jul
7:13 a.m.
New subject: Adding VPN server at UCSD ?
There is the option for a few people with the enough knowledge to configure some route
servers. This would then only require BGP peers to maintain a connection to a hadfull of
devices and get visablity of all routes
Chris
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, at 1:11 PM, Rob Janssen via 44Net wrote:
I don't
think BGP has a problem working over IPIP tunnels. In the end it is just a TCP connection
to one or mre endpoints.
In principle yes, but unfortunately the current IPIP tunnel implementation
handles both the tunnel establishment and the routing. The routing is
static. You cannot setup BGP sessions because you do not know the other
side's address and AS.
Possibly one could work around that by adding the 44net endpoint address
and the BGP AS number of each tunnel gateway, so the endpoints could
connect eachother for the BGP routing.
However that would be another major change and I'm not sure everyone
would want to BGP peer with everyone else. That could also introduce
new scaling problems.
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
1953
days inactive
1953
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Chris Lawrence -
Rob Janssen