IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Application Statement

Bruce Cole <bcole@cisco.com> Wed, 08 March 1995 20:32 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09714; 8 Mar 95 15:32 EST
Received: from maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09707; 8 Mar 95 15:32 EST
Received: from regal.cisco.com (regal.cisco.com [171.69.1.149]) by maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (8.6.9/ACTON-MAIN-1.2) with ESMTP id PAA03494 for <rolc@acton.timeplex.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 15:27:37 -0500
Received: from cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by regal.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/CISCO.SERVER.1.1) with ESMTP id MAA08643; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 12:25:56 -0800
Message-Id: <199503082025.MAA08643@regal.cisco.com>
To: yakov@watson.ibm.com
Cc: bcole@cisco.com, rolc@acton.timeplex.com
Subject: Re: Application Statement
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Mar 1995 14:12:52 EST." <199503081912.LAA11124@hubbub.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 12:25:56 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bruce Cole <bcole@cisco.com>

> The following represents an example of a BGP4 configuration (provided
> by Paul Traina, cisco Systems):
> 
>     router bgp 109
>     neighbor 1.2.3.4 remote-as 5
> 
> I personally don't find this example to fit your description of BGP4
> as "one of the most difficult IP routing protocols to configure".

Already a more complicated config than for most of our other IP routing
protocols, since the neighbors are statically configured.  I believe one
of the goals is to minimize the amount of static configuration used in
the large cloud.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email