From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 13:07:53 GMT-3
At 11:47 AM -0400 9/27/03, Marco P. Rodrigues wrote:
>Curious. I've read through RFC 1771 and I can't seem to think of
>any logical reason why the max bgp message size is limited to 4096
>bytes? I mean the length field in the header is 2 bytes allowing 65535.
>Since BGP sits on top of TCP it can also support that size.
I don't have time right at the moment to hunt for the reference, but
ISTR that it's been changed.
The real lesson is that RFC1771 is fairly obsolete. A revision is
almost done, and should be used as the definitive BGP reference:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-20.txt
You will find this much closer to real-world implementations
>
>Is this around for legacy reasons or is this design considerations I
>can't see by reading the RFC? Maybe memory/paging sizes in the
>ADJ-RIB. Efficient cwnd values for TCP sessions? A balance b/w
>reliability and throughput and allowing for more acknowledgments
>with TCP with smaller sliding windows?
>
>Just wondering if anyone knows why, and if it is a legacy issue then
>maybe look into increasing the size? :)
\
***Get your CCIE and a FREE vacation: Shop.GroupStudy.com***
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 07:24:38 GMT-3