Steve Meuse wrote:
> >My experience with hamradio networks says that a very good way to do ip
> >networking in packet radio will be using 2 levels of routing protocols:
> >1) "Intranetwork". Doing that a subnetwork is "coherent", and has internal
> >connectivity (a set of point to point routes to the hosts in your subnet).
> That
> >is very well done by rspf, wich is really 100% adapted to packet radio. Sure,
> >that routing here must no be too complicate if the subnetwork is defined in a
> >little geographic zone.
> >
> > 2) Internetwork. Defining well the subnets and having it well
> >"intraconnected", you can do routing with routes to networks (and interconect
> >networls) ... rip-2 do that well (?). That means that you don't have to
> export
> >millions of routes, only the routes to the networks.
> >The problem is that implementatios of rip-2 are not thinked for packet-radio
> >(except the nos).
>
> What you are describing here is the difference between IGP (Internal
> Gateway Protocol) and EGP (External). In the Internet world they are
> typically seperated by administrative control, or "Autonomous Systems".
> Provider A will use OSPF (igp) for his infrastructure, and will announce
> aggregates of his address space with BGP (egp).
No, that's not exactly that. What I say is to use rspf for creating a
coherent subnet. That could also be done with a network layer like
netrom, but working directly with ip is more efficient.
And then internconect this subnets with rip-2. That's still IGP.
We are very very far here to have real Autonomous Systems... BGP could
be used for
example to link far regions (cities) using the flexnet "backbone" net.
--
Saludos de Juli�n/EA4ACL
-.-
