Re: 1-prefix, 1-AS question
Tony Li <tli@cisco.com> Thu, 26 October 1995 06:48 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06737;
26 Oct 95 2:48 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06733;
26 Oct 95 2:48 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03382;
26 Oct 95 2:48 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA10080
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net);
Thu, 26 Oct 1995 02:38:40 -0400
Message-Id: <199510260638.AA10080@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2);
Thu, 26 Oct 1995 02:38:40 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1);
Thu, 26 Oct 1995 02:38:40 -0400
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 23:37:22 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
To: KD2D-IANN@j.asahi-net.or.jp
Cc: bgp@ans.net
In-Reply-To: <199510260625.AA09972@interlock.ans.net>
(KD2D-IANN@j.asahi-net.or.jp)
Subject: Re: 1-prefix, 1-AS question
My question is: If we advertise our routes via BGP to P2 and P3, will this conflict with their implicit advertisement by P1 as part of P1's CIDR block? Yes, there will be overlapping prefixes for you in the global routing tables. This may mean that traffic does not flow through P1 as you expect as longest match routing will prevail. Further, it makes debugging harder as some people will contact P1 about problems with your prefix. Tony
- 1-prefix, 1-AS question KD2D-IANN
- Re: 1-prefix, 1-AS question Tony Li
- Re: 1-prefix, 1-AS question Paul Traina
- Re: 1-prefix, 1-AS question Curtis Villamizar
- Re: 1-prefix, 1-AS question Paul Traina
- Re: 1-prefix, 1-AS question Curtis Villamizar
- Re: 1-prefix, 1-AS question KD2D-IANN