on the tunnel interface, works like a charm. Just thought it
was interesting so I figured I would send this.
~-Original Message-
~From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
~Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 10:18 PM
~To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~Subject: Re: OSPF vs EIGRP [7:41613
At 10:57 PM -0400 4/18/02, nrf wrote:
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
He didn't say that BGP negotiates the MTU in any of its PDUs. He just
says
that mismatched MTUs can be a problem, which is all I mentioned in my
message about OSPF also
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
That's what I thought, which is why what suaveguru said made me so curious.
The only problems with MTU that I thought BGP would have are the same
problems that any IP packet might have with MTU (fragmentation, etc.)
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL
BGP Keepalives are very short, but Updates can be very long. It looks like
they can be 4096 bytes from RFC 1771 (not counting headers).
BGP relies on TCP and IP, as you know, of course. Those layers would have
to make sure that the IP Don't Fragment bit was set to 0 (which means May
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
regards,
suaveguru
--- Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
The problem happens when the routers
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
He didn't say that BGP negotiates the MTU in any of its PDUs. He just says
that mismatched MTUs can be a problem, which is all I mentioned in my
message about OSPF also (although OSPF does in fact also include the MTU in
database description packets and refuse to become adjacent with a router
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
He didn't say that BGP negotiates the MTU in any of its PDUs. He just says
that mismatched MTUs can be a problem, which is all I mentioned in my
message about OSPF also (although OSPF does in fact also include
ATM Net that we
had). They would not form an adjacency, and the error message was about the
DDP packets, which could not be exchanged once that the MTU didn't match.
Persio
- Original Message -
From: Kane, Christopher A.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:33 PM
Subject: RE: OSPF vs
Kane, Christopher A. wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
The most frequently mismatched parameters relevant for OSPF
configuration
seem to be dead intervals mtu sizes.
OSPF doesn't care about MTU size.
Uh, excuse me? Go read RFC 2178 (OSPF v2), section G.9:
When two
The most frequently mismatched parameters relevant for OSPF
configuration
seem to be dead intervals mtu sizes.
OSPF doesn't care about MTU size.
Uh, excuse me? Go read RFC 2178 (OSPF v2), section G.9:
When two neighboring routers have a different interface MTU for their
You got here just before I did. I was just about to say that RFC 2328
overrides 2178.
Kane, Christopher A. wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
The most frequently mismatched parameters relevant for OSPF
configuration
seem to be dead intervals mtu sizes.
The problem happens when the routers try to exchange database description
packets. One side can send packets that are too large for the other side to
receive. Then the routers never achieve adjacency. It's an infamous
problem. I was glad that Kevin brought it up. I was thinking we should have
I currently manage a Large network (300) routers running OSPF and IPX. When
I first got here the network was Proteon routers. The routers were severely
limited in memory. Think 2500's with 8Mb RAM. We had a Cisco 5500 w/ RSM in
the core and started to replace the Proteons with Bay ASN. So we
Also, what about OSPF between Cisco and non-Cisco products?
Do they always
work together like they're supposed to?
Doug,
I've worked with OSPF in a multi-vendor environment and had no problems. All
the required parameters in the Hello packets were met and neigh/adj's were
established with
ospf. ISIS I have found is deployed mainly is Large Telcos.
-Original Message-
From: Jaeheon Yoo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 November 2000 09:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OSPF vs. IS-IS
Which one is more widely deployed, OSPF or IS-IS?
_
, November 14, 2000 8:21 PM
To: 'Jaeheon Yoo'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OSPF vs. IS-IS
ospf. ISIS I have found is deployed mainly is Large Telcos.
-Original Message-
From: Jaeheon Yoo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 November 2000 09:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OSPF vs
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Jaeheon Yoo wrote:
Which one is more widely deployed, OSPF or IS-IS?
I would say OSPF by far. But when it comes to very large scalable
networks, I would say IS-IS.
Brian
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
It looks to me that everybody prefers OSPF in our
company, just wondering any reasons that we do not
want to use ISIS?
Thanks
Kent
For enterprise networks, there is no particular benefit to using
ISIS. Many of the large ISPs do use it, in many cases for historical
reasons. There are some
20 matches
Mail list logo
