nanog mailing list archives
Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:04:33 +0200 (CEST)
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Blake Hudson wrote:
these OS's simply enforce classful boundaries regardless of the subnet mask you have set. As the KB states, this "bug" affects supernets only. I'm not trying to defend MS (they can do that themselves), but your statement was misleading.
Just for kicks, I tried using a .0.0/16 and .255.255/16 adress for stuff in IOS (configured it as loopback and tried to establish bgp sessions etc), that didn't work so well. I don't remember exactly what the problem was, but I did indeed run into problems.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: $10k per BGP prefix? (was Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements), (continued)
- Re: $10k per BGP prefix? (was Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements) Peter Kristolaitis (Aug 29)
- Re: $10k per BGP prefix? (was Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements) William Herrin (Aug 29)
- RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements STARNES, CURTIS (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Grzegorz Janoszka (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements james machado (Aug 29)
- RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements John van Oppen (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Matt Addison (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Blake Hudson (Aug 30)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements james machado (Aug 30)
- RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements John van Oppen (Aug 30)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 30)
- RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Harry Hoffman (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Jon Lewis (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Blake Dunlap (Aug 29)
- RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Paul Vinciguerra (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Blake Dunlap (Aug 29)