[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
BGP Experiment
- Subject: BGP Experiment
- From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble)
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 10:42:21 -0800
- In-reply-to: <CALZ3u+YNu+T7tHQO+oHvzFg1NK3Y=V0TGwhEmu+GYw+08kmj+g@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CADbXrd2QJYi6eWW6KBhaWANk=RhzfoHoypDHjZZHFw+pHw3tnA@mail.gmail.com> <CADbXrd0fBQxihw-RttMfXAASgx6ynPBuLtHcfsN6ja5-Xcfq=g@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAF664DwfOT2UW9FbXF1G+MH-c4Q1uENXqTfXBSyK9LHaTtORXg@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CALZ3u+YNu+T7tHQO+oHvzFg1NK3Y=V0TGwhEmu+GYw+08kmj+g@mail.gmail.com>
There is no such thing as a fully RFC compliant BGP :
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/standards/bgp.html
does not list 7606
Cisco Bug: CSCvf06327 - Error Handling for RFC 7606 not implemented for NXOS
This is as of today and a 2 second google search.. anyone running code
from before RFC 7606 (2015) would also not be compliant.
I did not see Juniper on the list of BGP speakers tested.
Töma Gavrichenkov wrote on 1/8/19 9:31 AM:
> 8 Jan. 2019 г., 20:19 <niels=nanog at bakker.net <mailto:nanog at bakker.net>>:
> > In the real world, doing the correct thing
>
> â?? such as writing RFC compliant code â??
>
> > is often harder than doing
> > an incorrect thing, yes.
>
> Evidently, yes.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190108/472ef31f/attachment.html>