John, > Sure, but I don't see how that's material to the case under > discussion.
Well it is to sort the history which you just started yourself to bring into this thread :-)
> 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.
Clearly it was not the next hop. So my question was - what was it then in RFC1771-March1995 which made those clients dropping them ?
Or perhaps just like Danny says implementions of BGP based on 1771 did not know about ORIGINATOR check which must be coded since it was coming in the future in RFC1966-June1996 hence the reflected routes were originally accepted ?
R. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
