on Lockhart" , "Mike Hammett"
*Cc: *"NANOG"
*Sent: *Wednesday, September 23, 2015 4:19:23 PM
*Subject: *Re: 4 byte ASNs through OpenBGPd to old Cisco IOS
Typo.
They did, and it *has* now formed peering with the RSD.
Thanks!
12.4.(24)T is the first version from
Cc: "NANOG"
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 4:19:23 PM
Subject: Re: 4 byte ASNs through OpenBGPd to old Cisco IOS
They did, and it now formed peering with the RSD.
Thanks!
12.4.(24)T is the first version from that IOS train that natively
supports 4 byte ASN's.
We can upgrade a
They did, and it now formed peering with the RSD.
Thanks!
12.4.(24)T is the first version from that IOS train that natively
supports 4 byte ASN's.
We can upgrade at a more convenient time and date.
:-)
On 09/23/2015 05:04 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Wed Sep 23, 2015 at 03:37:31PM -0500, M
On Wed Sep 23, 2015 at 03:37:31PM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Do any of you have any useful input other than they need to upgrade their IOS
> to something newer than 4.5 years old?
I recently went through a very similar issue, and was convinced it was related
to 32 bit ASNs.
Are they seeing thi
On 23/09/2015 21:37, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Do any of you have any useful input other than they need to upgrade
> their IOS to something newer than 4.5 years old?
12.4.(15)T is known to be affected by a variety of security problems, for
which cisco TAC will provide free upgrades - assuming they are
Our IX's route servers run OpenBGPd 5.5. We are having a problem with a new
customer getting turned up. He's getting back invalid or corrupt AS Path
errors. There's a network on the IX that has a four byte ASN. They're running
IOS 12.4.(15)T and is asking me if we support RFC 4893 which appears
6 matches
Mail list logo
