Re: [leaf-user] Upgrade to uClibc

2004-04-24 Thread K.-P. Kirchdörfer
Hello; I'm sorry, but to be safe you better start from scratch. The binaries are incompatible and beginning with Bering-uClibc 2.0 a lot of improvements and changes to various files in etc.lrp and other non-binaries has slipped in, so an easy update path cannot be provided. Even the modules.lrp

[leaf-user] Re: BGP

2004-04-24 Thread Michelle Konzack
Am 2004-04-22 23:01:21, schrieb William Burns: > >I was thinking of building a BGP aware router (W/ only ethernet >interfaces) and having it communicate w/ the 2 ISPs through the existing >cisco routers. >I've been told that BGP routers can't do that and that I need a single >BGP aware router w/

Re: [leaf-user] Re: BGP

2004-04-24 Thread George Metz
This is not entirely correct. There is, in fact, an RFC1918 equivalent for AS routing numbers, for one. Of course, a private AS should only really be used if you're multihoming to two different gateways on the same provider network. Additionally, ARIN only requires that you have a unique routin

Re: [leaf-user] BGP

2004-04-24 Thread bino-psn
Hi all I could not find any documentation about the relevan between BGP and the size of capacity contract. CMIIW that any one can request a /20 IP / AS-number allocation from the NIR as long as they can fulfill all the condition, and AFAIK the most important condition is about "usage plan" and "mul