At 2:25 AM +0000 7/14/03, Jason Viera wrote: >What bothers me is that Cisco's implementation of a protocol doesn't always >match the RFC.
Part of the problem is the RFC sometimes doesn't match ANYONE's implementation. That's not to say that there weren't interoperable implementations at the time the RFC was approved at various levels, but there are many cases where industry practice (multivendor) has drifted from the original document. BGP-4 is an excellent example -- RFC1771 ranges from having outright errors in the state machines, to not following the generally accepted BGP selection rules. Let's put it this way -- the revision is now at Draft 21, and probably getting very close to final. I would recommend anyone who wants to read IETF BGP material to read the latest I-D, not 1771. >At least from my limited experience in reading the RFC's; >OSPF for example should not be able to summarize the backbone area, but in >Cisco's implementation of OSPF you can summarize area 0. I hear Cisco might >remove that from the IOS, but who knows. On the other hand if you can wade >through the RFC's your understanding of how the protocol was intended to >work, will increase dramatically. I wish I had the time to get deep into the >RFC's, but unfortunately at this point in my studies it probably isn't going >to help me in the Lab in a few weeks. As always, I appreciate any insight >from the rest of the group! > >Regards, Jason Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72234&t=72162 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
