"Bad bgp identifier"

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Mar 31 11:15:39 UTC 2006

Unicast currently ends at is multicast and I believe that are listed as reserved for experimental purposes.


--On March 31, 2006 5:06:54 AM -0500 Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:

> 4271 specifies that bgp identifier must be a valid unicast ip address
> So what is the larget 32 bit value expressed as a dotted quad that meets
> this requirement?
> Is it the last address in class c? class e? Can 255.x.x.x be used?
> Do all vendors implement this?
> I understand that  draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-06.txt does away with
> the above requirements. Is this something I should ask vendors if they
> will support it?
> Thanks,
> Joe

If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20060331/db3b683c/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list