Re: RFC 1771
Tony Li <tli@cisco.com> Tue, 03 October 1995 19:08 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18038;
3 Oct 95 15:08 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18034;
3 Oct 95 15:08 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17816;
3 Oct 95 15:08 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA08259
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net);
Tue, 3 Oct 1995 15:02:56 -0400
Message-Id: <199510031902.AA08259@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2);
Tue, 3 Oct 1995 15:02:56 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1);
Tue, 3 Oct 1995 15:02:56 -0400
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 12:02:44 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
To: jprotopapas@odo.acdnj.itt.com
Cc: bgp@ans.net
In-Reply-To: <199510031553.AA77566@interlock.ans.net>
(jprotopapas@odo.acdnj.itt.com)
Subject: Re: RFC 1771
Please let me know of the differences between above rfc and its predecessor rfc 1654. Appendices of 1771 outline its differences with all prior BGP RFCs, except #1654. I am especially concerned with interoperability between routers running the two above ver ters running the two above versions of BGP-4. Please advice. Bug fixes. Interoperability should not be a problem. Tony
- RFC 1771 Jim Protopapas
- Re: RFC 1771 Tony Li