Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Wed Oct 22 09:54:55 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9MGstlu008982 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:54:55 -0700 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9MH4biD010495 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:04:37 -0700 Message-Id: <200810221704.m9MH4biD010495@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: Regarding BGP "unique" in policy routing Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:04:37 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > I'm a little bit curious when in slide 50 of lecture 11, you say that BGP is > unique among deployed routing protocols in supporting policy based routing. > Wouldn't using OSPF or EIGRP with a custom administrative cost achieve the > same or similar goal? Or were you referring to only EGP routing protocols? I'm not familiar with EIGRP. OSPF does not support policy to the level BGP does. For example, for every *network prefix*, you can specify something like a LOCAL_PREF in BGP. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu