On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 04:37:31AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I had thought Josh's paper (or maybe not josh, whomever it was) said
something along the lines of:
1) if more than one announcement prefer 'longer term', 'older', 'more
usual' route
2) if only one route take it and run!
Greetings,
I'm serving as the editor of the current BGP-4 MIB. We're trying to
push the MIB through standards. Last call has been issued.
The MIB, as currently documented includes the following four objects:
bgpPeerInUpdates
I hate using NANOG as a NOC of last resort, but it looks like this is
my best option.
We recently migrated our IP connectivity to UU-Net/MCI/whatever you
want to call them these days. I've migrated the majority of our
BGP topology collection feeds to the new IP space (anyone want to give
us
As part of the process of making the latest BGP draft an IETF standard,
the IDR working group is in the process of reviewing how the current
draft reflects deployed code.
As part of this effort, if anyone is aware of ISPs who intentionally
de-aggregate routes and could contact me to share some
As a quick followup to my request:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 05:06:51PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
As part of this effort, if anyone is aware of ISPs who intentionally
de-aggregate routes and could contact me to share some of the
reasoning and their methodologies behind this, I would greatly
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 04:07:11PM -0700, Dr. Mosh wrote:
Wonder if anyone of you have come across the need for this.
They have. Ask your vendor to implement the BGP MIB version 2.
If useful things are missing from this MIB, now is a good time to
ask for them.
