Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!boulder!daemon
From: tli@cisco.com (Tony Li)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: v.8.2 EGP problem
Message-ID: <34737@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 3 May 91 20:37:08 GMT
Sender: daemon@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Lines: 16


   If the EGP problem is not the same as the BGP problem; I would very much
   like to know what the BGP problem is.  Since there is talk of transitioning
   MILNET to BGP; we need to know about it too.

The BGP bug is a much more subtle design flaw.  Suppose that you learn
about a route through an external BGP session and that this route is
redistributed via IGRP as a default network.  Other BGP speakers in
the AS will discard the IGRP information and also discard the
designation of it being a default network.

Clearly IGP information needs to supersede internal BGP information
for internal routing decisions.  We are still discussing what the
correct behavior should be.

Tony