RFC 1771
Jim Protopapas <jprotopapas@odo.acdnj.itt.com> Tue, 03 October 1995 16:03 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15083;
3 Oct 95 12:03 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15079;
3 Oct 95 12:03 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13291;
3 Oct 95 12:03 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA77566
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net);
Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:53:08 -0400
Message-Id: <199510031553.AA77566@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1);
Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:53:08 -0400
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:52:08 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jim Protopapas <jprotopapas@odo.acdnj.itt.com>
To: bgp@ans.net
Subject: RFC 1771
X-Vms-To: smtp%"bgp@ans.net"
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. Thank you Jim Protopapas/ITT
- RFC 1771 Jim Protopapas
- Re: RFC 1771 Tony Li