Talk:Border Gateway Protocol

History?

Seeking historical information including:

• When was it first written
• Who first used it
• What did it replace/superseded.

Thanks. -- GreenC 14:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I came here looking to confirm that it is "still known as the three-napkin protocol" - can I suggest the following text:

The genesis of BGP was in 1989 when Kirk Lougheed of Cisco and Yakov Rekhter were sharing a meal at an IETF conference. They famously sketched the outline of their new routing protocol on the back of some napkins, hence references to the “Two Napkin Protocol”.

- with this, and this, and this as a refs. Snori (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done I also added the CHM/Cisco referenced issue of The Packet as a reference. Since both CHM/Cisco references have the same author. I was unable to find the full issue of "The Packet", only the cover. --A5n (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

References

path vector vs. distance vector citation needed

I removed the distance-vector reference because a path vector is not the same thing. A citation is needed for referring to BGP as a distance-vector routing protocol, otherwise the text as presented is confusing to people who don't know the difference, and nonsensical to people who do.

Replace:

The protocol is classified as a path vector protocol but is sometimes also classed as a distance-vector routing protocol.

with

The protocol is classified as a path vector protocol.

Websurfer2 (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

---

kvng (talk · contribs) proposed merger of Route reflector to here in May 2019. Jimmy Olano (talk · contribs) proposed merger of BGP confederation to here in August 2019 (but his edit summary seems to suggest he wanted to merge with Route reflector). Both proposals seem to have foundered for lack of any discussion. Although WP:SILENCE could be assumed to allow the merge to proceed, I notice that kvng indicated in talk that they were concentrating on improving Route reflector and may thus no longer support his/her own proposal.

I also considered removing the merge templates, but the stub nature of BGP confederation and its obvious relevance to this page makes me think the proposal was a good idea, and a merger of Route reflector may perhaps still be a good idea, despite the expanded article. Thus I am refreshing the merger discussion here and propose to leave it open one more week to see if we can gain consensus whether to merge the articles or not. Please state your preference for each article. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi everybody! Hello kvng (talk · contribs)! Sorry by my mistake! Other languages for Wikipedia in English are not vinculant but I want show you, with all due respect, same article in Germany language:

1 Protokollbeschreibung
2 Anwendungsbereich
   2.1 EBGP
   2.2 IBGP
       2.2.1 Vollständige Vermaschung
       2.2.2 Route Reflector
       2.2.3 Confederation
       2.2.4 Loopbackadresse

See 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, I believe that with this is clear my position, all my efforts for create a good article. Have a nice day all of you!--Jimmy Olano (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC) P.S. any improve now on any three articles will be welcome; after merge we will help again for redundances, style, etc.

Thanks Jimmy, yes I think the structure on the German page makes sense. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

My talk comment from 2014 at Talk:Border_Gateway_Protocol#BGP_confederation_merge_proposal indicates that I would improve BGP confederation and then reassess. It looks like improvement happened, reassessment didn't. I do think a merge should be considered here and I assume the silence is because no one, myself included, has gotten around to evaluating it. We need someone to outline how it will work. The German model can't be directly applied here because we comingled EBGP and IBGP in our coverage here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks kvng. Yes, where to put the merged material needs some thought. Some possibilities:

1. We create an IBGP heading, and have subheadings at least for these two subjects and the problem of internal scalability. This involves some reorganisation.
2. We create these as sub headings of Problems and mitigation -> internal scalability. This makes minimal changes but would perhaps be an ugly solution as it would require fourth level headings.
3. We move Internal scalability out of Problems and Mitigations and perhaps rename that heading to something else. That is a halfway house that requires a small amount of restructuring, but still makes these a sub heading of "internal scalability" rather than IBGP. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

OK so I forgot about this too! But now I have created a proposed merge at my sandbox. I have adjusted heading levels a little so that Internal scalability is an L2 heading (heading 3) and then the merged content from Route reflector and BGP confederation are l2 headiinsg (3.1 and 3.2). If you are content with the change I will close and complete the merge. If you don't approve, perhaps we can find another way to carry out the merge. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging kvng (talk · contribs) and Jimmy Olano (talk · contribs) -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your sandbox version looks great to me. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I also had a 'thank from Jimmy Olano so I will start work on the merge. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correctness question - someone please take a look at this

"The main difference between iBGP and eBGP peering is in the way routes that were received from one peer are propagated to other peers. For instance, new routes learned from an eBGP peer are typically redistributed to all iBGP peers as well as all other eBGP peers (if transit mode is enabled on the router). However, if new routes are learned on an iBGP peering, then they are re-advertised only to all eBGP peers."

Shouldn't the bolded be iBGP, not eBGP? I'm not an expert but hoping an expert can chime in.

Qwertyca (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not, the article is correct.

• eBGP → iBGP + other eBGP
• iBGP → eBGP

Propagating from iBGP to other iBGP is the job of a Route Reflector.

Symbol (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)