There's not a word about MTU in draft 17 of the update to RFC1771 (even being on the working group, I'm not sure if draft 18 is out yet). There is a maximum update length of 4K, but updates are inherently variable length.
At 9:53 PM -0400 4/18/02, nrf wrote: >Really? I had never heard of this problem. I'm not aware that BGP >negotiates MTU in any of its PDU's. Can you provide the RFC that discusses >this problem? > > >""suaveguru"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> If I am not wrong this problem also occurs for BGP >> peers with unmatched MTU sizes which causes BGP to >> flap when they exchange routing tables , especially if > > one neighbour is configured with full-routes > > The term "flapping" in BGP generally means that a route is rapidly withdrawn and advertised many times in sequence. In general, high routing activity in BGP is called "churn." This isn't in 1771, but we have documented it in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-01.txt (hopefully we'll be posting -02 in a week or so, and then going into Last Call for RFC. This document is on BGP convergence). -- "What Problem are you trying to solve?" ***send Cisco questions to the list, so all can benefit -- not directly to me*** ******************************************************************************** Howard C. Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief Technology Officer, GettLab/Gett Communications http://www.gettlabs.com Technical Director, CertificationZone.com http://www.certificationzone.com "retired" Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (CID) #93005 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=41930&t=41613 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
