Re: BGP "no sync"

From: jonatale@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 16:20:24 GMT-3


   
Interesting. Since they broke the rule, they just chaged it - nice to be a
monopoly. They did this before for confedarations:
" 3 AS_CONFED_SET: unordered set of ASs in the local
                                   confederation that the UPDATE message
                                   has traversed

                  4 AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE: ordered set of ASs in the
                                   local confederation that the UPDATE
                                   message has traversed"
-RFC1965

But Cisco swapped the meaning of 3 and 4 in this. It was a bug, but then,
majically, it was not
"3 AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE: ordered set of Member AS Numbers
              in the local confederation that the UPDATE message has
              traversed

      4 AS_CONFED_SET: unordered set of Member AS Numbers in
              the local confederation that the UPDATE message has
              traversed"
-RFC3065

John Neiberger wrote:

> Yep, that's it!
>
> Peter posted it a couple of weeks ago but it might have been on
> the other list. I was feeling too lazy this morning to look it
> up again.
>
> I just checked and this is obsoleted by RFC 3166:
>
> 1. Details
>
> During a review of internet standards relating to BGP, it
> became apparent that BGP OSPF interaction, as described in RFC
> 1403, is not common usage (if at all), and requires significant
> implementation complexity. Since this mechanism has not been
> in use in the public internet for many years (if ever), it is
> proposed to reclassify it to Historic.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:25 GMT-3