IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Helpful BGP Feature

Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com> Mon, 03 February 1997 21:54 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa10297; 3 Feb 97 16:54 EST
Received: from merit.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23438; 3 Feb 97 16:54 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.5/merit-2.0) id QAA27851 for idr-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:10:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.5]) by merit.edu (8.8.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id QAA27846 for <bgp@merit.edu>; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:10:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA15352 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for bgp@ans.net); Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:10:36 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:10:36 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970203161020.006fcdc4@lint.cisco.com>
X-Sender: pferguso@lint.cisco.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 16:10:31 -0500
To: EDS@rhqvm21.vnet.ibm.com
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Helpful BGP Feature
Cc: bgp@ans.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

At 03:05 PM 2/3/97 EST, EDS@RHQVM21.VNET.IBM.COM wrote:

>I dont believe current implementations provide sufficient
>granularity, and are defined in a static manner anyway.
>
>If you could specify what features are available in
>"current implementation" that you are referring to
>it may be helpful in understanding this.

Basically, I am referring to explicit (static) definition
of BGP peers in a configuration. I suppose I'm just being
thick, but could you elaborate what types of granularity
which statically defining peers does not provide?

Thanks,

- paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email