[ih] Exterior Gateway Protocol

Barbara Denny b_a_denny at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 2 22:05:51 PDT 2020 

 I don't remember being part of this discussion but Packet Radio had ongoing DARPA projects through the 1980s. I would have questioned whether BGP's use of TCP at that point in time would result in stable BGP peers across Packet Radio networks.  I don't know whether any testing was done. 
This is not to say we never tried anything that involved an EGP.  In September 1989 I participated a large military exercise using SINCGARS (a packet radio network with SINCGARS radios). However, we were just a stub network across a satellite link at Fort Gordon so no real test.  Unfortunately I don't remember right now if that exercise used BGP or EGP.  Allison Mankin might remember since she needed to take some measurements at the time. She called me to see if we could help her out since our SINCGARs demo network was one of the few sites up when she needed to do her work. Someone from BBN might know too because I think they were the ones who allocated the AS numbers used in the exercise.  I remember when we did this because Hurricane Hugo hit while I was on site so lots of activity to shut down early and weather the storm. 
barbara 
    On Wednesday, September 2, 2020, 02:33:31 PM PDT, Guy Almes via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 Scott,
  Exactly.
  As Vint just reminded me, not only was the variable length AS path an 
unusual characteristic, but BGP's use of TCP was quite controversial. 
But, in addition to other advantages, the use of TCP made possible 
several early implementations.
    -- Guy

On 9/2/20 5:23 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> Yes. My first IETF was #3 and a major topic was "FGP", the Follow-On 
> Gateway Protocol, figuring out a follow-on to EGP (several people on 
> this list will remember that time). It didn't get far, but we tossed 
> good ideas around, in particular iirc Mike St. Johns wanted to eliminate 
> using numbers to prioritize routes in any way. When the IETF developed 
> working groups, I had a short-lived one named something like "Topology 
> Engineering" that fed into Guy's WG. The zero-one-infinity mantra, and 
> the conceptualization of what was eventually called path vector, were 
> great developments. Unfortunately I got sick just before the Austin IETF 
> so I missed the moment of birth of BGP but Jeff Honig was there, and we 
> piled in with the Gatedaemon. Dennis Ferguson (again, that's as I 
> recall) had an implementation for gated in ~3 weeks.  After that, when I 
> was doing multicast, attempts at source-asserted path vectors for 
> interdomain multicast came right out of those early BGP concepts.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:10 PM Guy Almes via Internet-history 
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org 
> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> 
>    Craig et al.,
>         1987 was an interesting year.  The NSFnet-related regional networks
>    were connecting new sites and had to solve interesting routing problems.
>         EGP would tell you that a given network was reachable via a given
>    gateway router / AS.  But that network might be reachable via two
>    different gateways.
>         During that era, our "Sesquinet" regional network in Texas was
>    connected to two different valuable "backbone" type networks: the
>    Fuzzball-based proto-NSFnet via Boulder and the ARPAnet via Austin.
>    Both were useful.  Both had 56kb/s circuits.  Both were congested.
>         At that time, there were a few hundred networks, and I recall going
>    through the whole list, one by one, figuring out whether, if they were
>    reachable via both the ARPAnet and the proto-NSFnet, which should be
>    preferred.  I considered it worth doing, but it was of course Quixotic,
>    given the rapidly growing number of connected networks.
> 
>         Phill Gross asked me to lead an "Interconnectivity Working Group"
>    within the IETF and work to solve some of these problems.  It was a
>    great group, with members from the ARPAnet, NSFnet, NASA, ESnet, and
>    other communities.  Understanding the various "backbones", their
>    differing technical and policy natures, and the limitations of EGP all
>    made for fascinating discussions, which did allow us to make progress.
>         One of our explicit marching orders was *not* to invent a new
>    protocol.
>         But we did discuss the problem of how to choose which of two
>    exterior
>    routes to use when both advertised a given network.
>         One line of thought was to consider that the Internet, while not
>    having a "tree topology", did have a notion of levels of hierarchy,
>    e.g., campus, then regional, then national backbone, then international
>    links.  I am grateful that we fairly quickly realized that relying on
>    that notion of hierarchy would be building on sand.
>         But what kind of "metric" could be used to help make routing
>    decisions?
>         One idea, based on Cicso's IGRP protocol was to characterize each
>    transit network with a bandwidth and a delay metric.  Then minimum of
>    bandwidth along a path and sum of delay along a path could be used.
>    That did not get traction.
>         I'd been teaching a computer scientist where an idea called the
>    "zero, one, infinity rule" was discussed.  As applied here, if a single
>    scalar number would not suffice as a metric, then allow a metric of
>    variable length.  For example, a whole AS-path could be an interesting
>    kind of metric could be used.  But, particularly during that era,
>    variable-length fields in protocols were not in favor, and we did not
>    pursue this idea.
>         Except that, at our next working group meeting (at the January 1989
>    IETF meeting at UT-Austin), Kirk Lougheed (Cisco) and Yakov Rekhter
>    (IBM) invented BGP in one of the Internet's most famous napkins.  The
>    complete AS-path, variable though it was, was a key idea.
>         BGP solved several problems with EGP.
>         I should emphasize that the AS-path was never exactly regarded as a
>    "metric", but it provided valuable information.  I'll avoid going
>    further with the evolution of BGP, but it was so much better than its
>    predecessor and came along at a very fortunate time.
> 
>              -- Guy
> 
>    On 9/2/20 3:57 PM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
>      > There was a SIGCOMM '87 paper by Mills and Hans-Werner Braun that
>    discussed
>      > what happened when you tried to break the tree topology.
>      >
>      > Craig
>      >
>      > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:52 PM Scott O. Bradner via
>    Internet-history <
>      > internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>    <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>      >
>      >> I found a printout of my late 1990s notes which said that EGP
>    was "limited
>      >> to a tree structured Internet"
>      >> although I recall that people were hacking it to expand its
>    usefulness but
>      >> the result was not pretty
>      >>
>      >> Scott
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>> On Sep 2, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com
>    <mailto:b_a_denny at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>      >>>
>      >>> That is my recollection too. EGP had topology constraints.
>      >>>
>      >>> barbara
>      >>>
>      >>> On Wednesday, September 2, 2020, 08:07:37 AM PDT, Scott O.
>    Bradner via
>      >> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>    <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> my recollection was that EGP could not be twisted enough to be
>    able to
>      >> deal with the actual
>      >>> topology that was evolving on the Internet
>      >>>
>      >>> Scott
>      >>>
>      >>> ps - I tried to open an old powerpoint presentation (from the late
>      >> 1990s) where I discussed EGP & BGP
>      >>> but it seem like the oldest version of PowerPoint I have had
>    evolved
>      >> enough that it will no longer open
>      >>> that version  - I mention that because there is yet again a
>    discussion
>      >> on the IETF list about RFC formats
>      >>> and some people have argued, as people have argued for at least 20
>      >> years, that moving to MS Word
>      >>> would be a good thing
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>> On Sep 2, 2020, at 10:39 AM, Grant Taylor via Internet-history <
>      >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>    <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>      >>>>
>      >>>> On 9/2/20 7:55 AM, Dan York via Internet-history wrote:
>      >>>>> Grant,
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Hi,
>      >>>>
>      >>>>> It also needs more explanation that EGP was replaced by BGP. (The
>      >> current sentence there says “essentially replaced” and is a bit
>    vague with
>      >> no references.)
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Hum.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>> If any of you all here know of any RFCs that explicitly
>    indicate EGP
>      >> was replaced/obsoleted, or if you know of any journal articles,
>    academic
>      >> papers, historical documents, etc., that could be useful, I
>    would be glad
>      >> to update the article a bit. Or if you can point me to any info
>    about the
>      >> creation of EGP (there’s a line that needs a source). Or any
>    other info you
>      >> think would be useful in this Wikipedia article, that would be
>    great.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> I found a some information about EGP in and around the gated
>    routing
>      >> daemon.  I wonder if there might be some more information that
>    could help
>      >> you.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>> (Note that for info to appear in the English version of
>    Wikipedia, it
>      >> needs to be backed up by a “reliable source” -
>      >>
>    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources__;!!KwNVnqRv!VGbu8UR1ds9tLcdTmqj_BlSaJwdAR7VMX3YliVLEE7V0gQyXuH0Pp6ld3QEI5A$ 
>    - which includes
>      >> journal articles, academic papers, news articles, RFCs, etc.)
>      >>>>
>      >>>> I wonder if you can find any graphs on the number of Internet
>      >> connections using BGP.  If similar ever existed for EGP, you can
>    probably
>      >> compare / contrast the two.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> I also think that the lack of contemporary EGP implementations is
>      >> evidence of BGP's replacement of EGP.  As is the fact that BGP
>    supports
>      >> things that EGP does not.  Things which are used all over the
>    Internet,
>      >> e.g. multipath.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>> --
>      >>>> Grant. . . .
>      >>>> unix || die
>      >>>>
>      >>>> --
>      >>>> Internet-history mailing list
>      >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>    <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>      >>>>
>    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!VGbu8UR1ds9tLcdTmqj_BlSaJwdAR7VMX3YliVLEE7V0gQyXuH0Pp6mWiH895w$
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> --
>      >>> Internet-history mailing list
>      >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>    <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>      >>>
>    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!VGbu8UR1ds9tLcdTmqj_BlSaJwdAR7VMX3YliVLEE7V0gQyXuH0Pp6mWiH895w$
>      >>
>      >> --
>      >> Internet-history mailing list
>      >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>    <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>      >>
>    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!VGbu8UR1ds9tLcdTmqj_BlSaJwdAR7VMX3YliVLEE7V0gQyXuH0Pp6mWiH895w$
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>    -- 
>    Internet-history mailing list
>    Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>    <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>    https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!U48T7YiSdSbDj0MBDKXQJR9ZLw2rA7jXl7oPsi-nrmx85dq-HIJUZ5HMOKFtrg$>
> 
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

More information about the Internet-history mailing list