On 27/Oct/16 08:19, Job Snijders wrote:
> Please verify if you can see 192.147.168.0/24 and 2001:67c:208c::/48
Looks good for me.
Both come with:
unknown transitive attribute: flag 0xE0 type 0x20 length 0xC
value 3CCA 0001 0001
Mark.
> read the IDR thread(1), the vendors in question actually self reported.
> I don't think 'shame' here is quite appropriate, but certainly owen's note
> about: "Hey, pls don't do this again" with the added: ""this is not a good
> path to continue" were noted by several folks on the IDR list.
lucki
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 5:28 PM, James Bensley wrote:
>
>
> Name and shame, it is not acceptable!
>
>
read the IDR thread(1), the vendors in question actually self reported.
I don't think 'shame' here is quite appropriate, but certainly owen's note
about: "Hey, pls don't do this again" with the a
On 27 October 2016 at 16:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I don’t mind the move to 32, but I hope the vendors are getting appropriately
> smacked for squatting and that those attributes are not allowed to be
> misappropriated by the vendors.
>
> We have a standards process for a reason and vendors simpl
I don’t mind the move to 32, but I hope the vendors are getting appropriately
smacked for squatting and that those attributes are not allowed to be
misappropriated by the vendors.
We have a standards process for a reason and vendors simply squatting on
numbers is a violation of that process whi
Dear Internet,
Through this beacon it was discovered that a vendor was squatting on BGP
Path Attribute value 30. And another vendor sat on 31.
So, a twisted turn of events, the Large BGP Communities effort has ended up
with BGP Path Attribute value 32 - very befitting if you look at the very
prob
Hi
This looks like this on the ZTE M6000 platform:
ballerup-edge1#show bgp vpnv4 unicast vrf internet detail 192.147.168.0
255.255.255.0
BGP routing table entry for 192.147.168.0/24
25w4d received from 149.6.136.169 (154.26.32.23), path-id 0
Origin i, nexthop 149.6.136.169, metric 100, loca
7 matches
Mail list logo
