Re: EBGP over unnumbered serial lines
Tony Li <tli@cisco.com> Thu, 28 September 1995 21:06 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18247;
28 Sep 95 17:06 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18243;
28 Sep 95 17:06 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21010;
28 Sep 95 17:06 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA24046
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net);
Thu, 28 Sep 1995 16:55:17 -0400
Message-Id: <199509282055.AA24046@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2);
Thu, 28 Sep 1995 16:55:17 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1);
Thu, 28 Sep 1995 16:55:17 -0400
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:55:10 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
To: rxg@proteon.com
Cc: bgp@ans.net
In-Reply-To: <9509282052.AA03853@joplin.proteon.com> (rxg@proteon.com)
Subject: Re: EBGP over unnumbered serial lines
> Wow, you can do that? ;-) > > The correct answer (that Dimitry alludes to obliquely) is that if you > put your TCP peering address into the NEXT_HOP attribute that the > neighbor should accept it. Assuming the neighbor has a clue. No, we can't do that. I just wondered if you all experts out there have a way to do that ;-). Anyway, it did not even make sense to me and it was more of a curiosity question. Yes, this is doable and not even too tough. Well, at least for us it wasn't. It _did_ take a few passes to consider all of the cases when verifying the next hop. Tony
- EBGP over unnumbered serial lines Radha Gowda
- Re: EBGP over unnumbered serial lines Dimitry Haskin
- Re: EBGP over unnumbered serial lines Radha Gowda
- Re: EBGP over unnumbered serial lines Tony Li
- Re: EBGP over unnumbered serial lines Tony Li
- re: EBGP over unnumbered serial lines toconnor
- Re: EBGP over unnumbered serial lines Dennis Ferguson