IX and all peers are one hop away.
Kind Regards
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Danny McPherson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 February 2008 01:16
To: Ben Butler
Cc: Hank Nussbacher
Subject: Re: BGP TTL Security
On Feb 14, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Ben Butler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have
On Feb 14, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Ben Butler wrote:
I have validated via trace in both directions as being 1 hop.
I have read another article that implies the default behaviour at the
other end will to be send TTL 1 not 255 and consequently I need to
configure both ends to get the session to
come
On Feb 14, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Ben Butler wrote:
<=191 and the session stays down.
Which is proper bizarre!
Is it necessary to configure this on both side for the session to
re-establish. Is this a Cisco bug?
You're missing the fundamentals of what protection this
mechanism is meat to provi
Hi,
I am trying to implement BGP TTL security between one of my routers and
an eBGP peer that is one hop away over a layer 2 IX.
As soon as I add:
neighbor 212.121.34.1 ttl-security hops 2
or
neighbor 212.121.34.1 ttl-security hops 1
The peer drops to active/open sent with entries in syslog
