nanog mailing list archives
Re: "Bad bgp identifier"
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:15:39 -0800
Unicast currently ends at 223.255.255.255. 224.0.0.0/4 is multicast and I believe that 240.0.0.0/5 248.0.0.0/6 252.0.0.0/6 are listed as reserved for experimental purposes. Owen --On March 31, 2006 5:06:54 AM -0500 Joe Maimon <jmaimon () 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.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- "Bad bgp identifier" Joe Maimon (Mar 31)
- Re: "Bad bgp identifier" Owen DeLong (Mar 31)
- Re: "Bad bgp identifier" Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 31)
- Re: "Bad bgp identifier" Owen DeLong (Mar 31)