Talk:Exterior Gateway Protocol

Split

I intend to split this page soon. I feel that there should be a page for Exterior Gateway Protocols (with references to EGP and BGP), and a separate one for EGP, a.k.a. the Exterior Gateway Protocol. I may not get around to this for a week or so, so in the meantime, any comments are appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstarsinic (talk • contribs)

I feel the same way, but the user has not been active for a while. The split is now on my to-do list but I will not promise a date. --Pgallert (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force --Kvng (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Exterior Gateway Protocol: needs to define both uses of the term up front --Nethgirb 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be handled as a disambiguation page? Arugia (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We have two artcles Exterior Gateway Protocol and Exterior Gateway Protocol for two different topics. Disambiguation is currently handled through hatnotes on each page. This is perfectly adequate when there are only two topics associated with a title. I don't think it is necessary to create Exterior Gateway Protocol (disambiguation) or somesuch. ~KvnG 05:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

still a relevant protocol

I don't think that claiming "EGP is a now obsolete routing protocol" is entirely accurate, as EGP is still in use. Can this statement about its obsolescence be backed up? If not it should be amended.

Question to above: WHERE is EGP used today? Have you ever seen it in the wild? EGP is Obsolete, period.

EGP is no longer a relevant protocol. EGP is no longer in use as a mean of information exchange between Autonomous Systems. It may be still in use inside some AS for legacy equipments or between some stub AS and their upstream AS as a private arrangement, but this is irrelevant to the operation of the Internet. RFC 904 is now in status HISTORIC, which makes it obsolete AND deprecated, that is wholly abandoned for normal operations rather than simply obsoleted and improved upon by later RFCs. See RFC status for details on what HISTORIC means in the context of RFCs. Arugia (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this can be settled by noting that it is not widely in use -- obsolete, even -- but is by no means banished from the internet. Indeed, care should be taken to not make it sound like its 'obsolete' status is a value judgement; whether or not we think it's a great protocol is less important than its actual, real-world status on the internet. Also, historic RFCs refer to recommendations from the IETF, and do not describe the internet as it is. TLDR the piece should distinguish between its actual real-world use and whether or not the IETF treats it as a current recommendation. Bearblasting (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If you can find documented cases of current EGP usage (especially explaining why it's still in use), you are more than welcome to add them to the article. Actually, it would be a great example of an obsolete technology carrying on well past its sell-by date.Arugia (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed a tutorial link

In some clean-up of the article today, I removed the reference to EGP Overview by The TCP/IP Guide because the target page did not really include any more information than was in the Wikipedia article. - Dyork (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Need sources for replacement of EGP by BGP

It would be great to have some reliable sources that indicate that EGP was replaced by BGP. This is commonly known by people I have interacted with, but it's hard to find sources from that time that document that BGP replaced EGP. - Dyork (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)