i guess you have a lot of ibgp sessions ..........:-)
bgp finite state model http://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/internet/ip/routing/bgp/operation/finite_state_model.shtml http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:C5Rq3DV63akJ:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.71.3908%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf+BGP+finite+machine&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiwviFqLXrhPybI3RwpVftr_qlgTSZbIzw2b6rlIEAKE8pqIN-D_2BpJIDacMx18AVSBpZtVAYLoPiUcsLbzDOVAcH9whrXJqB8zFm6R7ImuKNoC8dkYD_OHliYNrldoLGde9Hc&sig=AHIEtbQa0Typ1WE3rB9ztWZaYFIA8t-mag http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271 --- On Wed, 6/15/11, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: > From: Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> > Subject: Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses > To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> > Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 6:54 PM > On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:47 PM, James > Grace wrote: > > > So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and > we were considering using private /30's for new > peerings. Are there any horrific consequences to > picking up this practice? > > "Horrific"? How about: "Most peers won't bring up a > session." > > What happens if the peer is using 1918 space internally? > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > >