BGP Aggregation Rule

From: Ahmed Mustafa (ahmed.mustafa@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Sat Apr 24 2004 - 03:07:20 GMT-3

• Next message: Scott Morris: "RE: BGP TCP vulnerability - possible solution??"
• Previous message: MMoniz: "RE: BGP TCP vulnerability - possible solution??"
• Next in thread: boby2kusa: "Re: BGP Aggregation Rule"
• Maybe reply: boby2kusa: "Re: BGP Aggregation Rule"
• Maybe reply: HP-France,ex2: "RE: BGP Aggregation Rule"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I understand that in order for aggregation to work, one of the more specific
routes must be in the BGP routing table, not IP routing table.

I believe it only required in BGP routing table. What happens if the more
specific route is in the BGP table such as

* 172.16.1.0, without a > sign. Without a greater than sign the route is not
considered for selection though but will it fulfil the aggregation
requirements

Regards,

Ahmed

• Next message: Scott Morris: "RE: BGP TCP vulnerability - possible solution??"
• Previous message: MMoniz: "RE: BGP TCP vulnerability - possible solution??"
• Next in thread: boby2kusa: "Re: BGP Aggregation Rule"
• Maybe reply: boby2kusa: "Re: BGP Aggregation Rule"
• Maybe reply: HP-France,ex2: "RE: BGP Aggregation Rule"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:54 GMT-3