On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:56:42 -0400 Daniel Walton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do to two routers involved support ttl-security? If so you can use > that, true it isn't the exact same as setting the TTL but the end > result is the same in that "the iBGP session to succeed only if there > is direct adjacency between my routers" will be the case. I just sent a patch doing what I wanted. Not all remote sides support ttl-security (older Quagga), and they also do not set ttl at all resulting in OS default ttl=64; making the ttl-security defunct. I'm also running it over some long-latency links that might flap; so TTL=1 would optimize traffic. If the link ever flapped the packets would not end up wandering around. Where as ttl-security is more about reducing CPU / memory usage on router with the expense of ttl=255 potentially causing extra traffic. That would've been probably acceptable, but given I cannot upgrade all simultaneously and they share a peer-group for other reasons; I would not be able to enable ttl-security until all other routers are upgraded. Thanks, Timo _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
