On Mar 26, 2009, at 1:13 PM, John G. Scudder wrote:
In the interest of historical accuracy:
On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
In RFC 1966 the RRs did not reflect the route back the client
because the client didn't know it was a client, and for
incremental deployment it was required that the RRs not reflect
it back or a routing information loop could occur.
The fact is that some RFC 1966 (and pre RFC 1966) RR implementations
*did* reflect routes back to the client, and relied on the client to
suppress them, because of this:
A BGP speaker SHALL NOT install a route with itself as the next
hop.
(That's the RFC 4271 language but 1771 said the same or similar.)
I'm not sure about that, I know that in 1998 I had this problem
in a real network, as noted earlier. From what I recall the spec
was the way it was because of this - what implementations did at
the time I do not know.
-danny
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
