And just to update, those drafts have made it into RFC 4271
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4271.txt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Danny McPherson
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: metric 0 vs
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:21:43AM +0100, Alexander Koch wrote:
I was wondering if someone had done any or some research on
this before...
Yup, when troubleshooting the ERXes former wrong handling of
no MED. :-)
basically I am not sure with all the many
implementations of BGP and all the
:- Alexander == Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hiya,
I was wondering if someone had done any or some research on
this before... basically I am not sure with all the many
implementations of BGP and all the vendors if and what those
will do when they see a
On Jan 3, 2006, at 1:03 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
So the spec is fuzzy about how no MED vs. MED=0 should be
treated, but
vendors seem to largely agree to no MED == MED 0. I know of no
deviation, except the old ERX bug which got fixed (ERX treated no
MED
as best, even better than MED=0 -
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Alexander Koch wrote:
I was wondering if someone had done any or some research on this before...
basically I am not sure with all the many implementations of BGP and all the
vendors if and what those will do when they see a metric of 0 and no metric. I
am not an expert
