RS/960 upgrade ... status report
bmanning at is.rice.edu
Fri May 1 14:02:52 UTC 1992
yakov at watson.ibm.com
> Ref: Your note of Fri, 1 May 92 7:12:54 CDT
> BGPv2 spec has the following text on the NEXT_HOP subject:
> "The NEXT_HOP path attribute defines the IP address of the
> border router that should be used as the next hop to the
> networks listed in the UPDATE message. This border router
> must belong to the same AS as the BGP peer that advertises it."
> BGPv2 spec requires checking NEXT_HOP ONLY for correct syntax
> (i.e., NEXT_HOP should carry a syntactically valid IP address).
> There is no specified timeout between consecutive BGP close and
So, let me get this straight. What is POSSIBLE in version two
is prohibited in version four in regards to NEXT_HOP. The
latest ANS rcp_routed started enforcing version four semantics.
I can not find where this was make public knowledge. Sigh...
It also seems clear that a recommendation of how to compute
interval times between BGP close and open would be useful for
addition to either the BGPv4 or IDPR spec.
Bill Manning bmanning at rice.edu PO Box 1892
713-285-5415 713-527-6099 Houston, Texas
R.U. (o-kome) 77251-1892
More information about the NANOG