Re: Pervasive BGP and routing loops.
Radha Gowda <rxg@proteon.com> Tue, 23 May 1995 12:44 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02447;
23 May 95 8:44 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02443;
23 May 95 8:44 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04728;
23 May 95 8:44 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA23458
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net);
Tue, 23 May 1995 08:31:38 -0400
Message-Id: <199505231231.AA23458@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2);
Tue, 23 May 1995 08:31:38 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1);
Tue, 23 May 1995 08:31:38 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Radha Gowda <rxg@proteon.com>
Subject: Re: Pervasive BGP and routing loops.
To: toconnor@bbn.com
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 08:31:23 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: bgp@ans.net
In-Reply-To: <199505222255.AA10562@interlock.ans.net> from "toconnor@BBN.COM"
at May 22, 95 06:53:25 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 624
Tony and Tim, Thank you both for your responses. It's my lack of understanding of BGP that made me believe that you can not advertise a route unreachable unless you have lost all paths to it. The following should take care of my problem. Radha > But if R3 decides the "best route" is via R4, then shouldn't it send an > UNREACHABLE update to R4 ? In other words, if I advertise path X to any > route R, and I then learn a better path Y to route R, then I forward the > new path as a replacement OR (in this case, because of your stricture not > to reflect routes back to the advertiser) I should send an UNREACHABLE.
- Pervasive BGP and routing loops. Radha Gowda
- re: Pervasive BGP and routing loops. toconnor
- Re: Pervasive BGP and routing loops. Tony Li
- Re: Pervasive BGP and routing loops. Radha Gowda