On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Liam Nattrass wrote:
> Hey Ondrej,
>
> Good point... Perhaps we can specify an instance ID (which doesn't appear
> to be used in the BGP proto anywhere) to differentiate dynamic instances
> from static instances? (See patch)
Hi
Using instance ID is a bit
Hey Ondrej,
Good point... Perhaps we can specify an instance ID (which doesn't appear
to be used in the BGP proto anywhere) to differentiate dynamic instances
from static instances? (See patch)
Thanks,
Liam
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:46 AM Ondrej Zajicek
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 07:58:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 07:58:07PM -0400, Liam Nattrass wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I was doing some work with dynamic neighbors in BGP, and found that I am
> not able to use multiple protocol definitions with neighbor ranges.
> Connections to the second and subsequent definitions are rejected.
>
> The
Hey all,
I was doing some work with dynamic neighbors in BGP, and found that I am
not able to use multiple protocol definitions with neighbor ranges.
Connections to the second and subsequent definitions are rejected.
The BGP protocol for the subsequent instances depend on a lock, but due to
the r
