[ih] Exterior Gateway Protocol

[Jack Haverty]

On 9/3/20 3:52 PM, Guy Almes via Internet-history wrote:
> But you were right then and now in pointing out the weaknesses of this
> binary intra-AS / inter-AS split.
>   I became particularly aware of that weakness when the IETF moved to
> expand the size of the AS field in BGP from 16 to 32 bits.  In 1987, I
> would not have anticipated 64,000 ASes.  Oh well.
> ....
>   Again, focusing on history, sometimes a technical idea (here, the
> binary intra-AS / inter-AS split, can allow an infrastructure to grow
> to become unstoppable and yet not be adequate for the additional
> growth it will need after becoming unstoppable.

Yikes!  When we created EGP circa 1982, IIRC we expected maybe a dozen
or so ASes would be sufficient to support experimentation with all the
research ideas.   64,000 ASes?  No way.

Also, the "plan" back then in the ICCB thinking. was that the research
efforts would hone in on solutions to at least a few of those problems I
listed, and the best solutions would be incorporated into the next round
of gateway-gateway protocols, and folded into the DoD standards (which
lacked any spec for gateways).  Having served its purpose, EGP would be
retired.   That would occur in parallel with the evolution from IPV4 to
the next generation IP, since a new routing mechanism would probably
impact the IP definition as well.

I didn't realize EGP would be so explosive.   Somehow things got out of
hand.....something for historians to ponder I guess.

/Jack